kevsim1

Small details that bother you

Recommended Posts

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this (I didn't feel like sifting through 33 pages) but, it really bothers me how the Baltimore Orioles primary logo isn't used on there uniforms at all. Their logo should just be the cartoon bird.

Why this?...

lty880yrmrra64y6tqfqmdnbf.png

Instead of this?...

8190_baltimore_orioles-alternate-2012.pn

Look at the Unis...

6fgz1qmjsywth4el95t6n9jol.png

Also it bugs me how the cartoon birds mouth doesn't connect and how elongated the cap bill is. Man I have a lot of problems with the O's. Speaking of that, I really hated that "O's" cap logo that too bugged me very much.

Because the top logo looks much better than that awful cartoon bird does. They need to keep the current unis and go back to the black hat with the top Oriole on it and get rid of that cartoon thing and the panels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully resurrecting this thread instead of starting a duplicate was the right call, but I just noticed that many of the shoulder numbers on the Dolphins' throwbacks have "blocks" of orange, instead of orange outlines around the white. I'm not sure how common this is among other teams, but I think it looks sloppy.

 

Seems like the rounder numbers all have it

Buffalo_Dolphins_Football_4.JPG

 

47 is beautiful

gettyimages-900116736.jpg

 

The 3s are kinda halfway awkwardly done:

26_8002773.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wherever they'd actually have to 'cut out' a part of the orange.

 

Example - with the 3, the outline of the whole number connects to itself - meaning the center part of the 3 is so close to the top and bottom left part that the outline touches, so they'd need to "cut out" little squares inside to show the aqua.

 

In your second photo, both the 4 and 7 have this issue - surprised you didn't notice.

 

With the 4, the inside isn't cut out.  With the 7, the outline around the serif part would touch that of the diagonal part, so there's an awkward large piece of orange on the underside of the top of the 7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe Flyers used to have that issue too back in the day.

 

Usually teams will use thinner outlines on the smaller numbers to avoid it.  Also, modern cutting methods might make it possible to avoid the solid color blocks, but I kinda think it would look even more cluttered to cut them out.

 

dd2b719a631305a7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That notch in the 9 is awfully pronounced. Almost looks like TCU's font.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Dolphins uni, that's a throwback and that's how it was. If they didn't duplicate those numbers, people would have complained about it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cosmic said:

Hopefully resurrecting this thread instead of starting a duplicate was the right call, but I just noticed that many of the shoulder numbers on the Dolphins' throwbacks have "blocks" of orange, instead of orange outlines around the white. I'm not sure how common this is among other teams, but I think it looks sloppy.

 

Seems like the rounder numbers all have it

Buffalo_Dolphins_Football_4.JPG

 

47 is beautiful

gettyimages-900116736.jpg

 

The 3s are kinda halfway awkwardly done:

26_8002773.jpg

 

The numbers are done that way because someone was paying attention when they did the research (although, they used a more modern 5, without the chamfer on the left side of the bend). :-)

 

120615_Powell.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

It's wherever they'd actually have to 'cut out' a part of the orange.

 

Example - with the 3, the outline of the whole number connects to itself - meaning the center part of the 3 is so close to the top and bottom left part that the outline touches, so they'd need to "cut out" little squares inside to show the aqua.

 

In your second photo, both the 4 and 7 have this issue - surprised you didn't notice.

 

With the 4, the inside isn't cut out.  With the 7, the outline around the serif part would touch that of the diagonal part, so there's an awkward large piece of orange on the underside of the top of the 7. 

I did notice it's there on the 4 and 7, but I thought it was much, much more subtle. The inside of the 4 is very small, so that doesn't bother me. I zoomed in and you can see that the orange outline doesn't quite follow the serifs on the 4 and 7, but in the big picture, it looks like a regular outline. Compare that to the zero, and I think it's clear that those numbers (4 and 7) are handled much better. They're also playing against the Bills, who don't seem to have trouble getting outlines on their numbers in a same or similar font (I'm looking at the 5s, since we have both of them here).

 

If that's how they really did it in the 60s, then I guess throw back properly if you're going to do it at all. I'm a big fan of those uniforms, but not of that detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

The numbers are done that way because someone was paying attention when they did the research. :-)

 

120615_Powell.jpg

 

Actually, they got the 5 wrong. The throwbacks don't have that notch in the outline on the left side of the 5 that your picture has.B)

 

Like I said above while you were probably typing this, I'm all for accuracy in throwbacks, but I don't like the look of that detail in a uniform that I otherwise really like.

 

Edit: and the font is different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cosmic said:

Actually, they got the 5 wrong. The throwbacks don't have that notch in the outline on the left side of the 5 that your picture has.B)

 

Like I said above while you were probably typing this, I'm all for accuracy in throwbacks, but I don't like the look of that detail in a uniform that I otherwise really like.

 

Edit: and the font is different

 

Yep. Just edited my post as I spotted it too. Can’t win ‘em all, I guess.

 

One detail that reeeeeally bugs me is this one: whoever designed the Bills’ throwback must have used a Polaroid-quality photo as the only reference to confirm the sleeve design, and now the Bills’ throwback will probably forever have two blue stripes and two red stripes on the sleeve:

 

3000636.gif

Buffalo_Dolphins_Football_3%20(1).JPG

 

A better photo shows that the sleeve stripes actually were an inverse of the socks; four blue stripes with red trim:

 

2189a_lg.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Yep. Just edited my post as I spotted it too. Can’t win ‘em all, I guess.

 

One detail that reeeeeally bugs me is this one: whoever designed the Bills’ throwback must have used a Polaroid-quality photo as the only reference to confirm the sleeve design, and now the Bills’ throwback will probably forever have two blue stripes and two red stripes on the sleeve:

 

3000636.gif

Buffalo_Dolphins_Football_3%20(1).JPG

 

A better photo shows that the sleeve stripes actually were an inverse of the socks; four blue stripes with red trim:

 

2189a_lg.jpeg

 

. . . not to mention that all four sleeve stripes are the same width on the throwback (or pretty close to it), unlike the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now