bartodell

FC Cincinnati

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

The Revs logo is more famous (or infamous) than the team itself. It’s like the Whalers in that regard...

 

Of course, the important distinction between Peter Good's Hartford Whalers logo and the New England Revolution's current mark is that the former is a well-designed masterwork, while the latter is a ham-handed aesthetic clunker.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know; on the one hand it would be nice if future Revs broke from the MLS archetypal design in a good way, much like how they currently do so in a bad way. On the other hand though, I don't think they need to stick with using colonial nods, either. But maybe that is a good idea in our current age of Hamilton. I could keep talking myself in circles on this.

 

Importantly, though, I think we should continue to assume that any Revs rebrand comes with a stadium in/near Boston. Given that Boston is what we might call old and traditional and stubborn as a city, part of me thinks the Revs should go *against* that grain and go modern, to carve out their own niche and corner a different part of the market if/when they become an actual Boston team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:


From where I'm sitting, none of the logos you've cited is anywhere near as well-designed or aesthetically-pleasing as Mark Walls' New England Revolution concept.

In each and every logo you've shared, there is some aspect of the design that strikes me as being completely extraneous or poorly-integrated: motion lines, randomly-placed founding dates, needless gradients, extraneous stars, crowns, flames, laurel sprigs, awkwardly-shaped shields, etc.

By comparison, Mr. Walls' logo concept is a testament to the strength of simple, straightforward, effective graphic design.                

 

i think they have a lot in common. its the same "ingredients" plated in a different manner; the styling is similar too. i think what any stock logo there or Rev iteration lacks is an idea, a strong concept that makes it interesting and recognizable. i'd refer to @McCarthy logo just posted — the play on the very same elements and "NE" creates a smart, memorable crest. taking the same ingredients and applying some wit to their interaction, a fusion of letter and relevant symbolism where the others just stack and place those elements in different ways. could the Walls concept be a team logo? sure, there's a lot worse than that. but IMO, when you're using these National (or even state) symbols and colors, you have to take it up a notch or risk being generic. i think a team like this especially has to think beyond aesthetics. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

ner-dribbble.png


The suggestion of an American flag with the "NE" is clever, particularly the latter letter being formed by the banner's stripes. That said, there's a bit of dissonance with the weight of the "N" being heavier than that of the "E". I'm not sold on the top of the badge being rendered in the same wave as that of the letters, though I'll concede that the letters would look off if the top of the badge were simply flat. I don't think the star between "REVOLUTION" and "FC" is necessary, particularly if you're going to incorporate a star element into the bottom third of the shield. The design of the soccer ball within the star needs to be refined. I'd like to see you take a crack at the stars forming the panels of the ball - similar to what the Revolution and Mark Walls designs both do. Or, could the soccer ball be made larger, with the panels rendered as stars and the "96" contained within the center star-panel? Or, perhaps, with just the outer five panels rendered as stars and the "96" taking the place of the center panel? As far as the shield is concerned, I'd like to see the bottom point be a bit more pronounced... sharper. It seems too rounded compared to the upper left and right corners. And I think the line-weight for the shield's blue outline should be the same all the way around.


            

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

ner-dribbble.png

 

Can't help myself. This is my Revs concept from a few months ago. 

 

This is a nice one, and it doesn’t even need any Nikespeak to explain the symbolism. Everything on this crest is mostly self-explanatory, although I can see some folks having trouble figuring out that the stripes are supposed to also be an E to go with that N.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Digby said:

Importantly, though, I think we should continue to assume that any Revs rebrand comes with a stadium in/near Boston.


Well, then we'd better prepare ourselves for a good long wait on a rebrand. Whispers about the viability of a soccer-specific stadium for the New England Revolution within the Greater Boston urban core, as well as rumors about development of such a facility coming to fruition, have been kicking around for over a decade with no concrete progress.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

The Word of God is a double edged sword...

 

You can say that again XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they keep the "FC" meaning football club ?  Logo reminds me of the grocery chain store Food Lion.  They must be the Cincinnati Food Lions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brian in Boston said:


From where I'm sitting, none of the logos you've cited is anywhere near as well-designed or aesthetically-pleasing as Mark Walls' New England Revolution concept.

In each and every logo you've shared, there is some aspect of the design that strikes me as being completely extraneous or poorly-integrated: motion lines, randomly-placed founding dates, needless gradients, extraneous stars, crowns, flames, laurel sprigs, awkwardly-shaped shields, etc.

By comparison, Mr. Walls' logo concept is a testament to the strength of simple, straightforward, effective graphic design.                

 

But my point remains: it's literally all the same elements as the clipart. The difference is one is really well executed (which is what I've been saying about the one you posted). It's just very cliché and nothing unique or distinguishable about it.

 

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

ner-dribbble.png

 

Can't help myself. This is my Revs concept from a few months ago. 

 

Now THIS is awesome! It is both unique, and feels like an evolution of the original crest. Has the same feel of motion, similar elements as the original, but presented in a fresh and unique way. Plus, with the N and E at the top forming a flag, it keeps the flag element of the original. Sign me up for this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

In each and every logo you've shared, there is some aspect of the design that strikes me as being completely extraneous or poorly-integrated: motion lines, randomly-placed founding dates, needless gradients, extraneous stars, crowns, flames, laurel sprigs, awkwardly-shaped shields, etc.

 

But couldn’t you say the same things about Walls’ logo? The motion lines flanking the ball? The faux-distressed type that doesn’t quite follow the banner right? They’re all cut from the same cloth and to pretend they’re not is just seeing what you want to see.

 

Truth be told, I think the Revs actual logo is the better executed of the two. It’s the style that turns people off (which is completely understandable), but they nailed the execution of said style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:


The suggestion of an American flag with the "NE" is clever, particularly the latter letter being formed by the banner's stripes. That said, there's a bit of dissonance with the weight of the "N" being heavier than that of the "E". I'm not sold on the top of the badge being rendered in the same wave as that of the letters, though I'll concede that the letters would look off if the top of the badge were simply flat. I don't think the star between "REVOLUTION" and "FC" is necessary, particularly if you're going to incorporate a star element into the bottom third of the shield. The design of the soccer ball within the star needs to be refined. I'd like to see you take a crack at the stars forming the panels of the ball - similar to what the Revolution and Mark Walls designs both do. Or, could the soccer ball be made larger, with the panels rendered as stars and the "96" contained within the center star-panel? Or, perhaps, with just the outer five panels rendered as stars and the "96" taking the place of the center panel? As far as the shield is concerned, I'd like to see the bottom point be a bit more pronounced... sharper. It seems too rounded compared to the upper left and right corners. And I think the line-weight for the shield's blue outline should be the same all the way around.


            

 

You make good points and I am considering your feedback in an update on the concepts forum. Just need to find the working file somewhere on this computer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I appreciate the discussion about the Revolution logo I did 10 years ago. There are valid points being discussed, for sure. I, for one, don't like the new FC Cincinnati crest at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

But couldn’t you say the same things about Walls’ logo?

 

I suppose you could, but I wouldn't. Why? Read on.
 

Quote

The motion lines flanking the ball?


I don't see motion lines. First, why would motion lines appear on both sides of the ball, from two opposite directions? What I see is a white stripe, similar to the other flag stripes under the word mark banner. I've always felt it was meant to give the logo six stripes, just as it has six stars in the ball... in each case, signifying the six New England states. As such, it doesn't strike me as an "extraneous" detail. Nor do I think it is "poorly-integrated" into the logo's overall design. Now, I'll grant you that the American flag's top stripe should be red, but - given that the topmost stripe under the banner is already red - I simply presumed that Mr. Walls exercised artistic license and opted to render said stripe in the alternating color. Whether that was his intention or not, I don't know.    
 

Quote

The faux-distressed type that doesn’t quite follow the banner right?


Said distressed font calls to mind a typeface style associated with the era in which the American Revolution - namesake of New England's Major League Soccer franchise - took place. Again, given this distinction, I don't find the detail "extraneous" or "poorly-integrated".  
 

Quote

They’re all cut from the same cloth...


I don't agree. I feel that the examples of extraneous and poorly-integrated components I referenced in my assessment of the clip-art logos were truly egregious, while Mr. Walls' mark strikes me as a simple, straightforward, well-crafted logo design... one in which each of its component elements serves a purpose. 
 

Quote

... and to pretend they’re not is just seeing what you want to see.


I honestly don't see any of the design elements Mr. Walls utilized in his New England Revolution concept being extraneous. In terms of poorly-integrated, I don't know that I feel the "type that doesn't quite follow the banner right" to quite rise to that level. Truth be told, I think it is barely noticeable.   
 

Quote

Truth be told, I think the Revs actual logo is the better executed of the two.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We all have our own opinions. You consider the New England Revolution's current logo to be "the better executed of the two". I consider said mark to be a ham-handed, dated-the-minute-it-was-created failure.  
 

Quote

It’s the style that turns people off (which is completely understandable), but they nailed the execution of said style.

 

Which is where we have our disconnect. I'm not someone who applauds graphic designers for nailing a style I find aesthetically lacking.

All of this said, it will be interesting to see just how long it takes the Krafts to have the Revolution's logo redesigned... or, if they ever actually manage to shake-off their apathy as investor/operators of the team long enough to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay but this topic is about a logo released this week, not one released 20 years ago nor a concept released 10 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Digby said:

Okay but this topic is about a logo released this week, not one released 20 years ago nor a concept released 10 years ago?

 

That's true. And, in my opinion, FC Cincinnati will enter Major League Soccer with one of the league's top logos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m just happy for Cincinnati that they’re getting a team. They’ve had a raw deal as far as sports goes. The Reds have been there for Cincy since the beginning. They had an NBA team, but they moved away eons ago. The NHL never even looked at Cincinnati, and technically neither did the NFL. Keep in mind the Bengals started out as an AFL club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now