NDwas Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 i personally don't think they're that badc and c PLEASE Tomorrow's just your future yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruk Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 yeah not bad not bad at all!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yac12 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I love the hats. I am not a big fan of shortening the team name on the home jersey and I would leave the DC off the top of the Capital building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingssss Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I like the concept and the colors but i dont know if i really like the "nats" on the uniforms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyRock Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Very few might agree, but I like the Nats current set. The home and road are so different that there's hardly a need for an alt.That being said, the look is a little too empty for me. The home and road jerseys need SOMETHING other than wordmark and stripes on the sleeves. Maybe some piping, maybe colored sleeves, I'm not sure.I also don't like the two alts idea. Just use the "DC" alt, and wear it with the matching cap for home or road. And, if the jerseys are going to remain this clean, then add some red sleeve stripes so the alt kinda matches the home and away sets. And yeah, I agree with Yac - I like the full name, and the DC stretches the viewer's eye too far up the logo. I'd also suggested a simpler capital building, the one you have is a little too detailed to match the rest of the wordmark.Not a bad start at all though, I love both caps, and I like the font and number styles. New York Jets |3-3| First, AFC EastNew York Mets |74-88| Fourth, NL EastNew York Islanders|34-37-11| Fifth, Atlantic DivisionNew Orleans Hornets |21-45| Third, Southwest Division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cranium Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 good work, although I'm also not a fan of "nats". To tempting to add a "g" in front. I like the font and the hats. They could use a "modern" look. how about some stripes down the pants and sleeves? my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boardname Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I really hate the font on that, but I do like the DC on the top of the Capitol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 No offense, but that is...... well, ugly.The look is too "turn ahead the clock", too futuristic. With a Washington Baseball team you need to have a hold on tradition while still trying to look contemporary.The look the nats have now fits that bill. THis uniform concept does not. Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapshot Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 This set looks nice, if the team were the "DC Nationals". While the DC alternate logo is pretty cool looking, it only would work on the alt jersey and not the home & road versions. Putting DC on the home and road caps makes as much sense as putting "M" for the Red Sox or "C" for the Giants.I don't like the different font for "Nats" than the rest of the wordmark. Actually, I don't even like the "Nats" nickname for the jerseys. I don't think I've ever heard the Mets referred to as the Metropolitans, but I have heard the Washington team called the Nationals. Spell out the full name, or put it on an alt. Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smith03 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I am not crazy for the idea of trying to pretend this team was est in 1905 when it was not. Just say NO to gray facemasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallWonk Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Good: Putting the DC on the road cap. With shirts that say "Washington," we need those DC caps. Pretty much everything else, I don't like. Alts that are just the normal jersey with a different color? Hate that. "Nats" instead of "Nationals"? Really, really don't like that. Your fonts? Not working for me at all. Italic numbers? I don't get it.Nothing in these in any way connects with the civic identity of Washington, the region's reputation in the rest of the country, the "Nationals" name, or the history of baseball in DC. A Nationals uniform needs to connect with at least one of those things. Still, I like what you've done with the red DC, especially with the away uniform set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilbert Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I consider todays Nationals a new team so I really dont like how the team says EST. 1905. Signature intentionally left blank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Reing Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I like the DC logo because I think the W they use now should be on a bag of Old Fashioned butterscotch candies. (It also doesn't match the shirt font. ) I know it's their old hat logo, but the DC is clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Actually, I don't even like the "Nats" nickname for the jerseys. I don't think I've ever heard the Mets referred to as the Metropolitans, but I have heard the Washington team called the Nationals. Spell out the full name, or put it on an alt. That's because the Mets are not the "Metropolitans," and never have been. They're just simply "Mets."The Devil Rays and Blue Jays are the first teams to use a shortened version of their name on the jersey. Don't remember which one was first. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knox Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I like the hats, but i honestly so no reason to change their current uniforms, which are the best in the division, IMO.And as far as I know, this franchise began playing in 1969, NOT 1905. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Well, I think the second Senators had a claim on 1901 as their heritage. Sort of a proto-Cleveland Browns situation.Not sure how I feel about the Nats using 1905, but I don't think I like it very much. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaftDu Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 the one thing that bothers me are the two different fonts for Nationals and Nats. They are not the same. Infact they are a lot different. The N for the Nationals and the N on the Nats are confusing. Look at it really closely. You would see the Nats the N is more like n. I would want to see if you simply it by choosing just one font. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teenchy Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I realize it's a little arrogant to quote yourself on an Internet board, but here's what I wrote in the original thread addressing the new Nats' use of "Established 1905." Hope I don't offend anyone.The original Washington AL franchise was known as "Senators" from 1901-04. It was renamed "Nationals" in 1905 in an effort to lose the stigma associated with the first Washington NL franchise (called the "Senators"). The name remained Nationals until 1956 when Calvin Griffith changed it back to "Senators," which it remained through 1960 and the relocation of the franchise to Minnesota. When the franchise reverted to the "Senators" nickname, it adopted the logo which you see in my avatar, which I'll insert in larger form below:Sportswriters and the general public continued to call the team the Senators though "Nats," being short, fit better in headlines.The logo, which features a top-hatted, frock-coated, cigar-smoking senator in a pitcher's wind-up, the Washington Monument in the distance below his left foot, was designed by Zang Auerbach, Red's brother.This patch is odd IMO. It's as if the franchise is trying to connect itself to the original Washington AL franchise, in which case it should more accurately read "Established 1901."In any event it's not the franchise that was established in 1905 but the use of "Nationals" as a nickname for a Washington MLB club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winghaz Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I wish some of you folks would get it through your skulls -- you START a redesign of the Washington Nationals uniforms by using the script W that is currently on their caps.You may not like it. But it's here to stay. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_limey Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I wish some of you folks would get it through your skulls -- you START a redesign of the Washington Nationals uniforms by using the script W that is currently on their caps. You mean like THIS?still very much a wip... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.