Lights Out Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 That's exactly what I was envisioning. Great find! POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakonius26 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I thought the guy behind the New Blue and Gold Project modernized the logo pretty well. The New Blue and Gold ProjectI've seen that before, and the two shades of gold always bothered me, even though the logo is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I thought the guy behind the New Blue and Gold Project modernized the logo pretty well. The New Blue and Gold ProjectDefinitly an improvement but the perspective of the Buffalo needs to be altered so the Buffalo is jumping through the Sabres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGWB Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Now personally, I'm not being stubborn, but I feel like the "modernization" is unnecessary. I feel like some things shouldn't be changed unless it's an overhaul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiK Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I like the New Blue and Gold Project concept but the buffalo looks too small for the logo. Anyone else see this?Treading lightly on this topic since swords (sabres?) are already drawn over if the logo is classic or not, the point is: (so far) it is the best looking logo in the Sabre series of logos since there are really only 3. The Slug is failed abstraction at best, the goat could be good with blue and gold colors and work on buffalo-ing the creature. That leaves oldest and youngest versions and frankly, the older version looks cleaner without the grey 'enhancement'.My two cents. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 How is it "nonsensical"? Outside of this forum, I've never seen that Sabres logo referred to as a classic, and most of the people who insist it's a classic on here are Sabres fans.Most hockey fans i've ever spoken with say that the original Sabres logo is a great hockey crest, and is indeed a classic. These aren't Sabres fans.Is the logo filled with shadows, seven colors, 3-d effects, gradients? No, but that is what makes it a good logo. It gets the message across. "Buffalo" and "Sabres". Simple, and yes, classic. Like the Devils "NJ" with the horns and tail. Not flashy, but simple. Classic. Does it's job, is pleasing to look at, and INSTANTLY recognizable.This. This. A million times this. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Most hockey fans i've ever spoken with say that the original Sabres logo is a great hockey crest, and is indeed a classic. These aren't Sabres fans.A Fair number say that true. But just as many would disagree and say its overated or visually unappealing.Is the logo filled with shadows, seven colors, 3-d effects, gradients? Was anybody advocating that? The Sabres Red and Black Era Logo had five colours, no gradients or "3-d effects" (whatever those are supposed to be).No, but that is what makes it a good logo. It gets the message across. "Buffalo" and "Sabres". Simple, and yes, classic. Like the Devils "NJ" with the horns and tail. Not flashy, but simple. Classic. Does it's job, is pleasing to look at, and INSTANTLY recognizable.Yeah it gets the message across while having zero redeeming aesthetic qualities. This does not make a good logo. The Devils logo IS great but it's visually appealing. The Sabres "Classic" logo is a flat, static jumbled mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I been saying it for the longest, but Imma say it again: the words "classic" and "iconic" get tossed around way too much around these parts. So, to that end, here's a challenge for someone to take a stab at: define the word "classic", and/or "iconic" as it relates to a sports identity...and then come up with a list of criteria to support it/them. And try not to base the thesis, nor supporting criteria, on your "favorite" logo or identity.(This should be fun to watch...if anyone actually dares to try it.) *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiK Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Classic: has stood the test of time (30+ years.)Iconic: measured by ease of recognition and/or success in the sport.These, I believe, are examples of logos that are both classic and iconic (for the record, I only support one of these teams):Along with this, and this.among others...Logos can be classic without being iconic, and vice versa (see patriots current logo).Now feel free to attack my reasoning without mercy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I been saying it for the longest, but Imma say it again: the words "classic" and "iconic" get tossed around way too much around these parts. So, to that end, here's a challenge for someone to take a stab at: define the word "classic", and/or "iconic" as it relates to a sports identity...and then come up with a list of criteria to support it/them. And try not to base the thesis, nor supporting criteria, on your "favorite" logo or identity.(This should be fun to watch...if anyone actually dares to try it.)I dare. For a sports logo to be Classic and or Iconic, it needs to be three things01) Instantly Recognizable.The second you see the logo you should be able to think of both the City and team name. That simple. A few examples besides the original six are the Flyers, Whalers, Northstars and Blues.02) Have some form of Success behind it.This doesn't necessarily mean a Stanley Cup, it just needs some form of memorable history tied to it before it can be considered classic. 03) Be Visually Appealing.I don't care how long a logo has been around or how much success it's seen, its not Iconic or classic unless it looks good. A good way to guage this is by asking the question "How would it be recieved if it was introduced today?" A couple logos many people say are classic but completely strike out in this regard are the Nordiques, California Seals (all variations), Canucks Skate logo and yes the Buffalo Sabres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 ...but the perspective of the Buffalo needs to be altered so the Buffalo is jumping through the Sabres.Why should the buffalo be jumping through the Sabres? Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I don't care how long a logo has been around or how much success it's seen, its not Iconic or classic unless it looks good. A good way to guage this is by asking the question "How would it be recieved if it was introduced today?" A couple logos many people say are classic but completely strike out in this regard are the Nordiques, California Seals (all variations), Canucks Skate logo and yes the Buffalo Sabres.But by that logic, the Canadiens' and Packers' logos would be ridiculed today. And some terrible logos were supported when originally introduced because the aesthetics of the moment were in a bad place.So no, I don't think that really ought to be the standard. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I dare. For a sports logo to be Classic and or Iconic, it needs to be three things01) Instantly Recognizable.The second you see the logo you should be able to think of both the City and team name. That simple. A few examples besides the original six are the Flyers, Whalers, Northstars and Blues.02) Have some form of Success behind it.This doesn't necessarily mean a Stanley Cup, it just needs some form of memorable history tied to it before it can be considered classic. 03) Be Visually Appealing.I don't care how long a logo has been around or how much success it's seen, its not Iconic or classic unless it looks good. A good way to guage this is by asking the question "How would it be recieved if it was introduced today?" A couple logos many people say are classic but completely strike out in this regard are the Nordiques, California Seals (all variations), Canucks Skate logo and yes the Buffalo Sabres.1) Is it instantly recognizable? Well, it's been around for 41 years, although 10 of those it did not appear on game day jerseys. However, it's been back now for the last five, while the "iconic" North Stars logo has been MIA from game jerseys for 20 years now. Plus, anyone looking at it can figure out the city and nickname. PASS.2) Some success? Well, no Cups in 40 years, with one Finals appearance wearing this logo, and one wearing the goathead. However, they have made the playoffs more often than not, and have had great players wear this logo (Perreault, Hasek, LaFontaine, Miller). So, I'm saying they've had at least "some" success. PASS.3) Is it visually appealing? Since this is subjective, and I think it is visually appealing, I say "yes." PASS.There you go. It passes all three of your criteria. Therefore, it must be Classic/Iconic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGWB Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I dare. For a sports logo to be Classic and or Iconic, it needs to be three things01) Instantly Recognizable.The second you see the logo you should be able to think of both the City and team name. That simple. A few examples besides the original six are the Flyers, Whalers, Northstars and Blues.Well, as a matter of fact, it's the only logo, at least in the big 4, that represents both the city AND team name in the logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 ...but the perspective of the Buffalo needs to be altered so the Buffalo is jumping through the Sabres.Why should the buffalo be jumping through the Sabres?Because that would you know, make sense. If the Buffalo is supposed to just be floating arbitrarily above the Sabres, what are the motion lines for? No really, what are those motion lines for if it doesn't matter which direction the Buffalo is going?But by that logic, the Canadiens' and Packers' logos would be ridiculed today. And some terrible logos were supported when originally introduced because the aesthetics of the moment were in a bad place.So no, I don't think that really ought to be the standard.I don't think either of those logos would be ridiculed today. They look great, period.3) Is it visually appealing? Since this is subjective, and I think it is visually appealing, I say "yes." PASS.There you go. It passes all three of your criteria. Therefore, it must be Classic/Iconic. judging from the comments on this thread that opinion is far from unanimous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGWB Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Because that would you know, make sense. If the Buffalo is supposed to just be floating arbitrarily above the Sabres, what are the motion lines for? No really, what are those motion lines for if it doesn't matter which direction the Buffalo is going?Yea. The motion lines are a real deal-breaker. How ridiculous and inaccurate this logo is.You're right, this logo makes no sense, therefore is useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 3) Is it visually appealing? Since this is subjective, and I think it is visually appealing, I say "yes." PASS.There you go. It passes all three of your criteria. Therefore, it must be Classic/Iconic. judging from the comments on this thread that opinion is far from unanimousJudging from the comments I've read on this board over the years no logo gets universal praise, even the so-called "iconic" ones. I get it, you don't like it. That's fine. However some (most?) do. To each his own.BTW Best. Logo. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I been saying it for the longest, but Imma say it again: the words "classic" and "iconic" get tossed around way too much around these parts. So, to that end, here's a challenge for someone to take a stab at: define the word "classic", and/or "iconic" as it relates to a sports identity...and then come up with a list of criteria to support it/them. And try not to base the thesis, nor supporting criteria, on your "favorite" logo or identity.(This should be fun to watch...if anyone actually dares to try it.)Well the Sabres are divisional rivals of the Leafs, so I'm as far from a Sabres supporter as you'll find. That being said, the old logo is indeed "classic" and "iconic."So why? Well to the point of your post I'll define what I mean by classic/iconic and why the Sabres' old/current logo fits the description. A classic logo, first and foremost, needs to be instantly recognizable. Something that's simple, but powerful enough to convey the full meaning of what it represents. The Yankees' NY, the Canadiens' C, the Cowboys' star, or the Colts' horseshoe all qualify. A lack of text. If you design a logo along the lines of the above you shouldn't need to shoehorn a wordmark into the logo. You don't need a COWBOYS wordmark when you see the star, or a DEVILS wordmark when you see the NJ and horns. As classic as the various Leafs' logos are, they would be made better if they lost the "TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS" script. There has to be some time behind it. An "instant classic" isn't really a classic. The Houston Texans, for example, have a logo that's usually referred to as an instant classic. If it sticks around for a significant period of time it'll reach that status, but it's still pretty new. It should be noted that "around a while" does not necessarily equal "championships." What really matters are memories. If the team's time in a look are memorable, then that helps the classic/iconic distinction. Championships help, certainly, but they're not necessarily required. The old/current Sabres logo has been around for most of the team's history. It uses a sharp colour scheme (even adding silver and darkening the blue to navy hasn't hurt it all that much). It's simple, and conveys the team name brilliantly without a single letter. You can look at it and it alone and know exactly what it means. On top of that it's unique to the team. The goat head logo could be for any team named located in Buffalo. It could be for any team with a buffalo or bison-themed nickname. The use of a generic black, red, and silver/grey colour scheme only makes matters worse. The old/current Sabres logo, however, uses a colour scheme that's been associated with the team for over forty years and the buffalo and crossed swords are instantly recognizable as belonging to the Sabres and only the Sabres. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Another possible criterion for "iconic" - if the team abandons it, the fanbase insists that they bring it back. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I don't care how long a logo has been around or how much success it's seen, its not Iconic or classic unless it looks good. A good way to guage this is by asking the question "How would it be recieved if it was introduced today?" A couple logos many people say are classic but completely strike out in this regard are the Nordiques, California Seals (all variations), Canucks Skate logo and yes the Buffalo Sabres.But by that logic, the Canadiens' and Packers' logos would be ridiculed today. And some terrible logos were supported when originally introduced because the aesthetics of the moment were in a bad place.So no, I don't think that really ought to be the standard.But, the Canadiens' and Packers' logos aren't that good. Yeah, they're iconic, but they aren't that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.