4367 replies to this topic

[Saintsfan]

 Captain Poncho, on February 6, 2013 - 11:23, said:

 Gothamite, on February 6, 2013 - 10:22, said:

 Captain Poncho, on February 6, 2013 - 09:52, said:

This is a cartoon illustration - not a logo. There is a stark and apparent difference between the two kinds of artwork, and it simply doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.  The old mark was vastly superior in very measurable ways.

So let's measure them.  Because no matter how often that first sentence is repeated, it does not become any more true.

Measurable way #1:

Embroidery applications.

How, exactly, are those spot details going to be embroidered onto any garment when reduced to a 3" area? Which line will you be removing/reworking/editing in order to achieve a logo that reproduces well at lower scales? The same holds true for the outer ear details and the tongue detail off to the side of the teeth.

With the thicker/bolder lines on the former mark, the logo could shrink down and still maintain visual integrity. This is not the case on the new mark.

Since it is functionally inferior, this makes the new mark inferior on the whole.

Measurable way #2:

With the new level of cartoonish detail - the illustrative style - when applying the new mark to playing surfaces, the fine detail work will be lost since blades of grass/synth turf are variable.  When that fine detail is lost in the application of the logo, it changes the mark, and thus, makes it inconsistent.  Inconsistent logos are inferior logos.

These are but a few of the measurable, quantifiable ways the new mark is inferior.

To Billy's point, the fact that a pro football team is implementing these logos doesn't automatically exonerate them from technical errors that will prove difficult for outside agencies/output houses/graphics companies/etc. to handle with consistency.  Depending on where Khan went for this design, they may very well have not thought about each and every application of the mark.  Or, he may have just really liked this Bugs Bunny style and ramrodded it through.  I've dealt with similar phenomena throughout my time in sports logo and general logo design projects.

Regardless of the reason, the outcome is the same: A new mark that has problems in a very measurable ways.

Sorry but those aren't measurable, quantifiable reasons. They may be true, but that doesn't make them measurable.

I still think this is an upgrade for the Jags. Obviously that could change once its practical applications begin to be used, but I like it.

I don't get the cartoonish comments though. To me cartoonish suggests its less realistic, but this logo is more realistic that the old logo,

[Captain Poncho]

 Saintsfan, on February 6, 2013 - 12:27, said:

Sorry but those aren't measurable, quantifiable reasons. They may be true, but that doesn't make them measurable.

Actually, these are quite quantifiable.  A mark that is utterly impossible to consistently reproduce in some of its major applications fails the benchmark of standardized logo design. A measurement of a good logo.

[Billy B]

 Captain Poncho, on February 6, 2013 - 11:23, said:

 Gothamite, on February 6, 2013 - 10:22, said:

 Captain Poncho, on February 6, 2013 - 09:52, said:

This is a cartoon illustration - not a logo. There is a stark and apparent difference between the two kinds of artwork, and it simply doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.  The old mark was vastly superior in very measurable ways.

So let's measure them.  Because no matter how often that first sentence is repeated, it does not become any more true.

Measurable way #1:

Embroidery applications.

How, exactly, are those spot details going to be embroidered onto any garment when reduced to a 3" area? Which line will you be removing/reworking/editing in order to achieve a logo that reproduces well at lower scales? The same holds true for the outer ear details and the tongue detail off to the side of the teeth.

With the thicker/bolder lines on the former mark, the logo could shrink down and still maintain visual integrity. This is not the case on the new mark.

Since it is functionally inferior, this makes the new mark inferior on the whole.

Measurable way #2:

With the new level of cartoonish detail - the illustrative style - when applying the new mark to playing surfaces, the fine detail work will be lost since blades of grass/synth turf are variable.  When that fine detail is lost in the application of the logo, it changes the mark, and thus, makes it inconsistent.  Inconsistent logos are inferior logos.

These are but a few of the measurable, quantifiable ways the new mark is inferior.

To Billy's point, the fact that a pro football team is implementing these logos doesn't automatically exonerate them from technical errors that will prove difficult for outside agencies/output houses/graphics companies/etc. to handle with consistency.  Depending on where Khan went for this design, they may very well have not thought about each and every application of the mark.  Or, he may have just really liked this Bugs Bunny style and ramrodded it through.  I've dealt with similar phenomena throughout my time in sports logo and general logo design projects.

Regardless of the reason, the outcome is the same: A new mark that has problems in a very measurable ways.

 Captain Poncho, on February 6, 2013 - 11:23, said:

 Gothamite, on February 6, 2013 - 10:22, said:

 Captain Poncho, on February 6, 2013 - 09:52, said:

This is a cartoon illustration - not a logo. There is a stark and apparent difference between the two kinds of artwork, and it simply doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.  The old mark was vastly superior in very measurable ways.

So let's measure them.  Because no matter how often that first sentence is repeated, it does not become any more true.

Measurable way #1:

Embroidery applications.

How, exactly, are those spot details going to be embroidered onto any garment when reduced to a 3" area? Which line will you be removing/reworking/editing in order to achieve a logo that reproduces well at lower scales? The same holds true for the outer ear details and the tongue detail off to the side of the teeth.

With the thicker/bolder lines on the former mark, the logo could shrink down and still maintain visual integrity. This is not the case on the new mark.

Since it is functionally inferior, this makes the new mark inferior on the whole.

Measurable way #2:

With the new level of cartoonish detail - the illustrative style - when applying the new mark to playing surfaces, the fine detail work will be lost since blades of grass/synth turf are variable.  When that fine detail is lost in the application of the logo, it changes the mark, and thus, makes it inconsistent.  Inconsistent logos are inferior logos.

These are but a few of the measurable, quantifiable ways the new mark is inferior.

To Billy's point, the fact that a pro football team is implementing these logos doesn't automatically exonerate them from technical errors that will prove difficult for outside agencies/output houses/graphics companies/etc. to handle with consistency.  Depending on where Khan went for this design, they may very well have not thought about each and every application of the mark.  Or, he may have just really liked this Bugs Bunny style and ramrodded it through.  I've dealt with similar phenomena throughout my time in sports logo and general logo design projects.

Regardless of the reason, the outcome is the same: A new mark that has problems in a very measurable ways.

Can we wait until we see the logo on a coach's polo before we say it won't look good at small sizes. I would find it hard to believe that the NFL would approve a logo that can't be easily seen at small sizes. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit (I doubt it), but an organization that cares as much about their visual identity as the NFL does will make sure that a team's logo is functional in all applications before they approve it.

[pHiL Kizer]

I hope the do just like the Bengals and don't place the logo on the helmet and just go with a jaguar print.

[Saintsfan]

 Captain Poncho, on February 6, 2013 - 12:37, said:

 Saintsfan, on February 6, 2013 - 12:27, said:

Sorry but those aren't measurable, quantifiable reasons. They may be true, but that doesn't make them measurable.

Actually, these are quite quantifiable.  A mark that is utterly impossible to consistently reproduce in some of its major applications fails the benchmark of standardized logo design. A measurement of a good logo.

Sigh!

One, I don't buy your argument. Some soccer club badges are very detailed and can be reproduced in embroidery fashion. But you've not quantified how detailed a logo can or cannot be. You've made a qualitive judgement that these are too detailed. You've not measured anything, you've made a judgement, not a measurement.

[TSHARE18]

 pHiL Kizer, on February 6, 2013 - 12:55, said:

I hope the do just like the Bengals and don't place the logo on the helmet and just go with a jaguar print.

The owner already said it will be on the helmets

[Captain Poncho]

 Billy B, on February 6, 2013 - 12:50, said:

Can we wait until we see the logo on a coach's polo before we say it won't look good at small sizes. I would find it hard to believe that the NFL would approve a logo that can't be easily seen at small sizes. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit (I doubt it), but an organization that cares as much about their visual identity as the NFL does will make sure that a team's logo is functional in all applications before they approve it.

I've been doing this for well over 15 years. Those spots will not embroider to the detail in the marks unveiled yesterday. They just won't. Neither will they hold that kind of narrow detail line on turf/grass. Now, they may have alternate plans for all embroidery that we're unaware of (such as only applying the text mark to embroidery), but they will not be able to embroider the new logo to the illustrative detail shown. That will mean it's inconsistent across different applications.

 Saintsfan, on February 6, 2013 - 12:59, said:

Sigh!

One, I don't buy your argument. Some soccer club badges are very detailed and can be reproduced in embroidery fashion. But you've not quantified how detailed a logo can or cannot be. You've made a qualitive judgement that these are too detailed. You've not measured anything, you've made a judgement, not a measurement.

You can choose to believe me or not - I'll not weep bitter tears over your refusal to acknowledge it. Your semantic dancing does not disqualify the fact that this mark cannot hold its detail when applied to both embroidery and turf. This is not supposition.

[MEANS]

We've already seen it embroidered on a hat and it did not hold up well, and the head looked even more distorted.

[Brian in Boston]

 burgundy, on February 6, 2013 - 00:23, said:

The overall shape is still a bit too elongated to accurately represent the true size and proportions of a jaguar's skull (they're larger and boxier), but I love the streamlined, simplified, more stylized rendering of your logo. Nicely done!!!

[Brian in Boston]

 burgundy, on February 6, 2013 - 00:57, said:

How's this?

Better yet. Great work!

[Brian in Boston]

 shoresidejake, on February 6, 2013 - 04:43, said:

BINGO!!! THIS truly and succinctly illustrates what is wrong with the proportions of the Jaguars' new logo as it exists. The "Altered aspect Ratio" version of the logo that shoresidejake has provided is much more representative of the true size of a jaguar's head. As a result, it looks 100% better.

I still have a problem with the level of detail in the new logo, but simply tweaking the proportions as shoresidejake has here improves the logo exponentially.

[Brian in Boston]

 Sterling84, on February 6, 2013 - 09:41, said:

PHENOMENAL, as always, sir!!!

[dmhtfld]

Uniwatch has an article with some Browns concepts in it. This one is my favorite.



More here:
http://espn.go.com/b...sign-the-browns

[TheOldRoman]

 phutmasterflex, on February 6, 2013 - 09:48, said:

On the team page, the Jags have a poll on the new logo and this image was the background for the poll. Looks similar to their old jerseys so I won't look too much into it, but maybe it could be a sign of new things to come?

This came up a year or two ago. Apparently, the Jaguars use that graphic as the background for all their website polls.

[PatsFan12]

What i want to see the helmet look like (Made by GotPixels):

[vmd9]

 dmhtfld, on February 6, 2013 - 13:47, said:

Uniwatch has an article with some Browns concepts in it. This one is my favorite.



More here:
http://espn.go.com/b...sign-the-browns

Honestly the jersey and socks are awful. But the pants stripes are pretty cool. If they could incorporate that type of striping on the jersey as well it would be a great update.

[aawagner011]

That Browns concept doesn't work for them, but I really like that as a generic concept idea!

[Bolt957]

I liked the drawn sketch in that link. Very reminiscent of Northwestern's uniforms by Under Armour

[Lafarge]

Yeah, I liked the basic idea, and as far as creativity is concerned, it was one of the better concepts in the contest, I just thought the shoulder/sleeve stripes and the helmet/pants stripes contrasted horribly.

Was anyone else disappointed with this contest? I felt like there were very few unique designs at all.  This one pales especially in comparison to the Seattle contest, that one had some great designs.

[lenardo]

 vmd9, on February 6, 2013 - 16:44, said:

 dmhtfld, on February 6, 2013 - 13:47, said:

Uniwatch has an article with some Browns concepts in it. This one is my favorite.



More here:
http://espn.go.com/b...sign-the-browns

Honestly the jersey and socks are awful. But the pants stripes are pretty cool. If they could incorporate that type of striping on the jersey as well it would be a great update.

Surprisingly I find myself really liking this. The socks and sleeves might be a little overkill, but I really enjoy those shoulder stripes. The one in the article with the stripe across the chest is also very good. Usually I don't like change for the browns, but both of those are very clean and refreshing.