Jump to content

Evolution of the current Buffalo Sabres identity.


daschuck77

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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'.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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):

dcy03myfhffbki5d7il3.gif970.gifhj3gmh82w9hffmeh3fjm5h874.gif7205.gif

228.gif56.gifyo3wysbjtagzmwj37tb11u0fh.gif124.gif

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.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 things

01) 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

...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
sB9ijEj.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dare. For a sports logo to be Classic and or Iconic, it needs to be three things

01) 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

I dare. For a sports logo to be Classic and or Iconic, it needs to be three things

01) 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.

bufg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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

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.

bufg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Judging 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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.