JustABallCoach

New Houston Astros Uniforms

Recommended Posts

Current hollow star > Clip art star

By a country mile.

This idea that the clasic star is somehow "clip-art" is pretty dumb. In fact, that design predates the concept of clip art.

If anything, you've got it backwards... The H-star doesn't look like clip art, clip art looks like the H-star. That's how clip art works... take a classic design, and make a generic verson of it, because its just that iconic and people will want to copy it.

That's why you'd never have to worry about a clip art version of the hollow star... why would anybody want a version of that?

The current and 90's star are the perfect logos for a team named after the space program.

By comparison, The H star logo looks like something I'd wake up with in the morning tattooed it on my face after a rough night of drinking.

So... you have poor taste in logo design, AND a drinking problem?

A. I would hardly call the H-star "iconic". It's far from that. I think if you went around and asked people, I doubt most people would be able to identify it or associate it with the Houston Astros (at least outside of Texas). It combines a letter in the most generic block font and the most cookie cutter, generic looking star possible, almost by definition "clipart". The hollow star, while not at the same "iconic" level as the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc., is unmistakably Houston Astros, and actually took some creativity and effort to make, rather than just sticking a generic block letter in front of a star and calling it a day.

B. No, he just has (gasp!) different taste in logos than you, which, last time I checked, was allowed. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that they have "poor taste".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current hollow star > Clip art star

By a country mile.

This idea that the clasic star is somehow "clip-art" is pretty dumb. In fact, that design predates the concept of clip art.

If anything, you've got it backwards... The H-star doesn't look like clip art, clip art looks like the H-star. That's how clip art works... take a classic design, and make a generic verson of it, because its just that iconic and people will want to copy it.

That's why you'd never have to worry about a clip art version of the hollow star... why would anybody want a version of that?

The current and 90's star are the perfect logos for a team named after the space program.

By comparison, The H star logo looks like something I'd wake up with in the morning tattooed it on my face after a rough night of drinking.

So... you have poor taste in logo design, AND a drinking problem?

A. I would hardly call the H-star "iconic". It's far from that. I think if you went around and asked people, I doubt most people would be able to identify it or associate it with the Houston Astros (at least outside of Texas). It combines a letter in the most generic block font and the most cookie cutter, generic looking star possible, almost by definition "clipart". The hollow star, while not at the same "iconic" level as the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc., is unmistakably Houston Astros, and actually took some creativity and effort to make, rather than just sticking a generic block letter in front of a star and calling it a day.

B. No, he just has (gasp!) different taste in logos than you, which, last time I checked, was allowed. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that they have "poor taste".

No, I get that. It was a joke...he mentioned having a rough night of drinking... see what I did there? Not brilliant comedy, I admit, but obvously a joke, I would've thought.

And I'm not saying the H-star is Yankees / Dodgers iconic, I'm just saying it's pretty silly to call it clip art considering it is a logo that predates clip-art, that in fact is the sort of straight forward, letter-plus-symbol image that a lot of logo clip art was designed to imitate.

I'll say it again. Thje H-star doesn't look like clip art... clip art looks like the H-star. Its a subtle distinction, but it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm not saying the H-star is Yankees / Dodgers iconic, I'm just saying it's pretty silly to call it clip art considering it is a logo that predates clip-art, that in fact is the sort of straight forward, letter-plus-symbol image that a lot of logo clip art was designed to imitate.

I'll say it again. Thje H-star doesn't look like clip art... clip art looks like the H-star. Its a subtle distinction, but it makes sense.

By that logic, they look like each other. If clip art looks like it, then it looks like clip art as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the H-Star to me is how small the H is. If the whole city-letter thing is all about civic pride, why's it such an afterthought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all this talk with the Astros about retro vs. modern vs. retro modern - maybe part of the problem, from a designer's point of view, is that the nickname itself is kinda "dated", not as in "out of date" or "old", but simply in that "Astros" sounds like something out of the late 1950s/early 1960s. Can't think of a great sports comparison, but it's just like when you hear the word "Tory" or "Tories" in the U.S.; and your mind goes back to the British loyalists during the American Revolution. It's a term of its time and birthplace.

I guess that is my way of saying that modern retro is probably the best way to go -- not necessarily the mainly traditionalist route that the rumored design seems to be.

Agreed on all points. For years I've been advocating for a "googie baseball" style Astros identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirm or deny, new uniforms looking anything like these?

AstrosHome1.jpg?t=1350940544

AstrosAway.jpg?t=1350940518

All I know is that the home cap is supposed to have an orange bill.

From the pic that was enhanced (from the start of the thread), it looked like the number font is the 1960's-era Astros font. It was a sort of standard block for flannel-era jerseys, so I don't think it has a specific name. But it is different from the Standard Block in the mock-up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I love the H-star logo. Having grown up in the Dome era and attended many games there as a kid, the logo speaks to me as 100% Astros. The open-sided star (or whatever it's called) in current use is, in fact, an update to the original open-sided design of the '90s navy-gold identity (a la Caminiti, Randy Johnson et al). I don't think I'm shedding any light on that fact but I personally feel both "open-sided" designs are lousy. So far, my opinions.

However, what I know to be fact are the basic design principles that professional identity designers strive to achieve in their logos: simple and clear, distinctly unique, practical, timeless and appropriate for industry. That's it. The H-star design TECHNICALLY meets those standards (had the Astros stuck with it for the next 40 years) as does the interlocking LA (Dodgers), SF (Giants), NY (Mets and Yankees), Boston's antique B, 'A' with apostrophe 's' (A's), StL, etc. So why would one be considered classic and another not? I believe what separates the discussion of, say, the Yankees "NY" as being supremely classic and the Astros H-star as being clip-art-ish is that the Yankees/Dodgers/Giants/etc elected to stay with the design over a considerable number of years whereas teams like the Astros and Padres (total clusterf---s from an identity perspective) do not have the benefit of history to be considered as "classic." In other words, a certain amount of time has to pass, a number of decades, maybe 40 years, I don't know what the threshold is, for viewers to accept a design as meeting the attribute of "timeless." We can only look back and make that assessment.

The Astros, Padres, Marlins, etc. fail because they have changed their identities every 8-10 years (approximately speaking, of course) since coming into the league or have not been in existence long enough to stick with a design. Had the Astros stuck with the H-star design since its debut in 1965, we wouldn't be having this discussion and I think the cap logo would be considered with the likes of NY, LA, Boston, etc...teams that have elected to stay true to the initial identity, and incidentally, teams that have a great deal of history on their side from which to assess.

The logos from the NHL's Original Six and their 2012 versions are very, very similar, if not exact in some cases. We'd NEVER consider those to be clip art because the teams have preserved them over decades. They DEFINE the team. We can look back with confidence and call them classic icons. When you jack with your identity, you appear inconsistent and you lose the right to be considered timeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the H star thing just trolling?

How many other logos are considered clip art by those standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the H star thing just trolling?

How many other logos are considered clip art by those standards?

I wouldn't say it's trolling, I'd just say it's polarizing. People either really like it or they really don't. There aren't many in the middle with it.

I grew up with it. As far as I am concerned, the H-Star is much weaker than the current star. I associate the H-Star with crappy teams that rarely won anything in the Dome (a hell-hole of a stadium that needs to be nuked immediately). But it seems like Crane is more interested in pandering to nostalgia (bringing back the H-Star and potentially the most boring new design in the league) and trying to recoup his monetary losses (the eyesore billboards in LF). I don't blame him for rebranding the team and trying to make money. I would have done the same thing. But I wouldn't have completely blown up the old identity in favor of plain block lettering or blocked out the skyline view in LF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never cared for the look of the H-star. It's just... too plain, in my opinion. I'd be curious to see what they intend to do to modernize it, if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll admit, my love for the current star is partially a product of my life as a baseball fan. My fondest memories of the Astros are watching them when they had some really good teams with the current and former shooting star. They had their best seasons ever in those uniforms and were a really impressive team. The days when they wore the "Clip Art Star" (I want this baby to stick :P ) was usually filled with them playing as uninspired as their look. Sure they had a few moments of glory in them, but it was nothing compared to what they accomplished in the updated uniforms. And while the first shooting star was a bit wonky, it was still a really unique set IMO that fit the Astros theme perfectly. The updated set had some issues, mainly with the colors and the mash up of the western theme and the space look, but it was IMO a perfect refinement to that logo. It was a nice balance for a team trying to represent the space program in Houston as well as trying to reflect the southern culture of Texas. I love both of those logos because they're super minimalist yet still get the point across so well. The old logo was nothing more than a solid star with a block letter over the top of it. It's something that could be made by any 1st grader. The shooting star at least had some thought put into the design. The old logo reminded me of a logo you would see at a gas station. Combine that with orange and navy, which isn't a bad color combo at all but not unique to baseball, and you have a set that is either really uninspired, or worse, you add elements to the set such as rainbow guts or those really forced looking shoulder stripes in order to make them stand out, and you have an absolute disaster of a uniform. At least with the shooting star the colors were unique to baseball when they started using them. Navy and gold is a great color combination, as is black and brick (IMO, the majority of the hate for the current Astros set stems from the Diamondbacks ripping off their colors).

Maybe I'll warm up to the "Clip Art Star", and from the looks of it, I may have to. But that's going to take the Astros really stepping up their game on the field and making a big name for themselves. Teams that play uninspired baseball in uninspired looks usually sink to the bottom of my collective consciousness very quickly. If they lose 100 or more games a season in those updated throwbacks, they'll shift, at least in my mind, to the most forgettable team in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the H-Star to me is how small the H is. If the whole city-letter thing is all about civic pride, why's it such an afterthought?

I always thought that the H-star would have looked better if the star was on top of the H, and it acted as the bridge connecting the 2 parts of the H.

However, my biggest problem with the H-star is how the H is just slapped on top of the star and gets muddled up by the different background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who produces Rockets and Astros games for TV and we were shooting the breeze over a couple of beers and he said he saw the uniforms about three weeks ago. I quote: "They are extreeeeeemly booooring." I pressed him for details but he's not a uniform guy. All he could say was they had plenty of orange and blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who produces Rockets and Astros games for TV and we were shooting the breeze over a couple of beers and he said he saw the uniforms about three weeks ago. I quote: "They are extreeeeeemly booooring." I pressed him for details but he's not a uniform guy. All he could say was they had plenty of orange and blue.

Sounds like these new uniforms will perfectly reflect the team's play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I love the H-star logo. Having grown up in the Dome era and attended many games there as a kid, the logo speaks to me as 100% Astros. The open-sided star (or whatever it's called) in current use is, in fact, an update to the original open-sided design of the '90s navy-gold identity (a la Caminiti, Randy Johnson et al). I don't think I'm shedding any light on that fact but I personally feel both "open-sided" designs are lousy. So far, my opinions.

However, what I know to be fact are the basic design principles that professional identity designers strive to achieve in their logos: simple and clear, distinctly unique, practical, timeless and appropriate for industry. That's it. The H-star design TECHNICALLY meets those standards (had the Astros stuck with it for the next 40 years) as does the interlocking LA (Dodgers), SF (Giants), NY (Mets and Yankees), Boston's antique B, 'A' with apostrophe 's' (A's), StL, etc. So why would one be considered classic and another not? I believe what separates the discussion of, say, the Yankees "NY" as being supremely classic and the Astros H-star as being clip-art-ish is that the Yankees/Dodgers/Giants/etc elected to stay with the design over a considerable number of years whereas teams like the Astros and Padres (total clusterf---s from an identity perspective) do not have the benefit of history to be considered as "classic." In other words, a certain amount of time has to pass, a number of decades, maybe 40 years, I don't know what the threshold is, for viewers to accept a design as meeting the attribute of "timeless." We can only look back and make that assessment.

I completely agree with all these points, but I still think that even had the H-star stuck around for so long, I'd still feel the same about it. I think for me, it's the lack of any kind of contrast between the H and the background star that makes it look very bland to me. I feel if there was something in between, maybe a white keyline, that added some kind of boundary around the two elements, it would look a lot better. From a distance, it just kind of looks like a blob, while a lot of the interlocking letters logos tend to have very distinctive shapes that can be recognized almost immediately. I don't feel I'd be able to pick out the H-star like I can pick out some other logos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it. And despite us being the worst team in the league right now I think they will sell plenty of caps and look forward to seeing a lot of people wearing them. I would really like to see an alt cap, all navy with only a white H. I just don't see how the dodgers interlocking block font can be great, but a lock font h in front of a star is plain and boring and generic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a much better replacement for the H-Star...

Astros_zps7772e2d9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One nice thing about the return to orange: A bit of city synchronicity with the Houston Dynamo. Wish more cities would follow Pittsburgh's lead in declaring a set of colors.

Speak for yourself. I like having my teams have their own identities.

Never said I was speaking for anyone BUT myself. Take a chill pill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current hollow star > Clip art star

By a country mile.

This idea that the clasic star is somehow "clip-art" is pretty dumb. In fact, that design predates the concept of clip art.

If anything, you've got it backwards... The H-star doesn't look like clip art, clip art looks like the H-star. That's how clip art works... take a classic design, and make a generic verson of it, because its just that iconic and people will want to copy it.

That's why you'd never have to worry about a clip art version of the hollow star... why would anybody want a version of that?

The current and 90's star are the perfect logos for a team named after the space program.

By comparison, The H star logo looks like something I'd wake up with in the morning tattooed it on my face after a rough night of drinking.

So... you have poor taste in logo design, AND a drinking problem?

A. I would hardly call the H-star "iconic". It's far from that. I think if you went around and asked people, I doubt most people would be able to identify it or associate it with the Houston Astros (at least outside of Texas). It combines a letter in the most generic block font and the most cookie cutter, generic looking star possible, almost by definition "clipart". The hollow star, while not at the same "iconic" level as the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc., is unmistakably Houston Astros, and actually took some creativity and effort to make, rather than just sticking a generic block letter in front of a star and calling it a day.

B. No, he just has (gasp!) different taste in logos than you, which, last time I checked, was allowed. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that they have "poor taste".

No, I get that. It was a joke...he mentioned having a rough night of drinking... see what I did there? Not brilliant comedy, I admit, but obvously a joke, I would've thought.

And I'm not saying the H-star is Yankees / Dodgers iconic, I'm just saying it's pretty silly to call it clip art considering it is a logo that predates clip-art, that in fact is the sort of straight forward, letter-plus-symbol image that a lot of logo clip art was designed to imitate.

I'll say it again. Thje H-star doesn't look like clip art... clip art looks like the H-star. Its a subtle distinction, but it makes sense.

I never said it was clip art, I said it was ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.