andrewharrington

Members
  • Content Count

    9,784
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by andrewharrington

  1. I would debate the integrity of the original; its linework is very directly lifted from the artifact (silhouette, mouth, beak, eyes, brow...). That alone puts in on the wrong side of moral for me. For that reason, I prefer the current. It’s a great interpretation of a piece of native art, not a direct copy of one.
  2. Across 30+ teams in a league, or 60+ college teams with a decent amount of history behind them, that would lead to a sea of sameness with little opportunity to set yourself apart. Three colors can absolutely work, and does for many teams. You just have to be smart and strategic about how you implement it.
  3. I understand what you’re saying. The critiques there should come across as, “changing x, y, and z would make this logo better,” but instead come across as, “changing x, y, and z would make this logo look more like how I like logos to look.” It’s subjectivity disguised as objectivity, in a way. Flaws in digital art shouldn’t be acceptable simply because most people don’t notice them or because they like the art despite the flaws. That’s like a publisher accepting a book filled with errors and badly structured writing just because it’s the next in a popular series for pre-teens. If you like the logo with the flaws, you’d still like it without them. This is a conundrum for anyone who creates things (painters, designers, writers, choreographers, musicians, etc.). It often comes down to a choice: should you bend your own philosophy and principles in exchange for the notoriety and exposure that comes with mass appeal, or should you do what you think (or know) is right and hope that talent and quality eventually outshine the trends?
  4. You wouldn’t believe me if I told you. As Derek said (and I think I’m remembering this right), that logo was done in house at OSU, and it was out for roughly one day before Rickabaugh (designer of the original?) said something to the effect of, “What are you doing? Give me a couple hours and we can fix this.” The current logo was out within the week.
  5. I haven’t. I would take a crack at it if I was asked, but something rubs me the wrong way about it. He looks like all the good ol’ boys who fit this description back when I was a student:
  6. No, you’re not going to be prosecuted (I think only DC has a $100 fine and/or 30 day jail sentence on its books as potential punishment), but as others have mentioned, there is no distinction between “flags” and “things that look like flags” to the flag code. If there were, the slope would be much too slippery. How would one make a legal distinction between a 6-inch promo giveaway flag on a wooden stick and an “actual” flag? They’re both fabric (maybe even the same fabric), both the same design, and both waving in the wind, but one is different somehow and doesn’t need to be treated with the same reverence? That’s much too vague, which is why that distinction doesn’t exist in the flag code. The flag is but a symbol, and it’s the symbol that should be revered according to the code. Thus, a flag is a flag, no matter how or where it’s depicted: “...flag, standard, colors, or ensign’, as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size...”
  7. I’m sure many share your opinion, but the code is the code. If the flag isn’t supposed to touch the ground or fly in bad weather, then personally, I don’t see how stuffing it up your butt crack (or wearing it on your shoes, which pretty much exclusively touch the ground) can be dismissed as “harmless fun.”
  8. Totally agree. All I kept looking at was the random white stripe on the pants. I really think the rams would be onto something if they pair a gold jersey like this with their standard white pants and blue socks.
  9. The capital A is written like that in many styles, though, so I wouldn’t consider that lowercase.
  10. I’m sure sometimes it’s exactly what you’re describing; overthinking it through the lens of merchandise, but in this case it was simply a match to the brown that’s already available in pants/gloves/helmets. If a team was going brown for their permanent home/road look, there’s more leverage to explore a custom color for all the equipment manufacturers create a new match, but for a single game, it’s typically going to be a stock color.
  11. I would say the Brewers’ Ball-in-Glove logo fits this criteria.
  12. But couldn’t you say the same things about Walls’ logo? The motion lines flanking the ball? The faux-distressed type that doesn’t quite follow the banner right? They’re all cut from the same cloth and to pretend they’re not is just seeing what you want to see. Truth be told, I think the Revs actual logo is the better executed of the two. It’s the style that turns people off (which is completely understandable), but they nailed the execution of said style.
  13. It was, or at least the felt made it appear that way. Personally, I’d prefer all the brown pieces match each other even if it means the color isn’t as noticeably brown as it could be (though I do feel the darker brown is a better color for fans, and is probably close to what their original jerseys were before the color got washed and faded away).
  14. I can’t disagree with that, but it’s inconsequential to me when evaluating the logo. In fact, I’d argue that it indirectly reinforces my point. The team itself might as well be invisible (whether due to ownership apathy, lack of success, etc.), but the logo is pretty damn recognizable in comparison (and it’s original in sports, even 20+ years later). The Revs logo is more famous (or infamous) than the team itself. It’s like the Whalers in that regard, just much more polarizing.
  15. I’ve never gone public with this, but I love the Revs logo. It greets nearly every tenet of conventional logo and branding wisdom with a great big, “F yourself,” and it does so with confidence and gusto. The only thing that I hate about it is that there’s not a great way to display it on dark colors. That can be worked around on the uniform and many places where it might be used, but it definitely is potentially challenging for some applications. That said, the current Revs logo, while it is polarizing, completely bonkers, and certainly stuck in its time (though I’d argue it’s aesthetic is very representative of a particularly memorable time in American soccer; the ‘94 World Cup), it is, above all else, distinctive and expressive. The one you’ve got there is forgettable. All it says to me is, “Yeah, we’re the token stars and stripes team in our league.” That’s not to say I don’t think the Revs brand or logo could be improved, but I definitely don’t think the one you’ve posted is the right move.
  16. I have now, and I love it! Perfectly illustrates that the purpose of a logo is simply to identify something, not necessarily to communicate everything (or, in this case, anything) about the brand. One is not meant to understand and experience the Chicago Cubs through a circle with a word in it. To get what the brand is communicating, one has to soak in the sun, see the white pinstripes, feel the ivy, eat the Vienna beef, taste the Old Style...
  17. I think the real issue here isn’t that this symbolism is present, but that designers and brands feel the need to trumpet it like it actually means something to people. It’s fine if the lion was drawn with three feathers for a reason, but it ultimately means little to a fan. It’s fine if nobody knows why there are three feathers, because they don’t care. Explaining all these little tidbits to death is like walking into Yellowstone saying, “Look at this wood chip! Oh! And this pebble! Have you felt this mud!?” all the while ignoring the vast landscape of beauty that is created by the some of those parts. It puts the audience’s focus exactly where it doesn’t belong, and I think it’s a pretty bad way to present work. I’m still not sure that beginning with *only* an idea is the best way to go about it. You still need a plan and some vision because you have to be able to communicate that idea with aesthetics and branding. Some ideas have deep wells to explore, some have very shallow ones. There are great ideas in both of those categories, and even a great idea can be difficult to communicate. Truth be told, the aesthetics and the way an idea is presented are equally as important as the idea itself. It’s the first impression for 99% of the people who interact with a brand, and just as it’s not wise to sacrifice an idea for the aesthetics, nor should you sacrifice the aesthetics for an idea. It’s always a balance; the two have to support each other. I often assume that people aren’t going to get the idea, and that helps me find ways to communicate it more clearly in the aesthetics. Either way, though, I think there is a 50-year idea here, but it’s being overshadowed by the hollow symbolism. At its core, this is a neo-German club in a city/region (I like to call it the “Bavarian Belt”) that loves its German culture. It’s like the Celtics brand adapted for Cincinnati. Columbus does the same thing, and it’s successful. Milwaukee could pull it off, too. Is it a particularly deep or original idea? No, it’s pretty simplistic and common, as mentioned, but it’s an idea that resonates with Cincinnati and and an idea that will endure for a long, long time, regardless of how many points are on the mane.
  18. Ah, I missed that part. Maybe Jimmy’s buying back all the Shamet 23 jerseys? ?
  19. You definitely don’t want to see the vector artwork. Trust me when I say those are no better. I think this lion has some really nice parts, but the whole is not up to the caliber of the good pieces. The typeface, though (the straight versions, at least), I think is great for what they’re going for with this club. The angled counters and terminals perfectly evoke the checkered flag of Bavaria, which was the first thing I saw in the type (I’m also familiar with Cincinnati's rich German influence, so take that for what it’s worth). I also love how this design choice could potentially stoke an intense rivalry with Columbus if they end up staying, given the Crew’s own positioning as an Anglo-German club since their redesign.
  20. Only if you’re changing numbers but staying on the same team. If you switch teams, all your old jerseys are instant deadstock items regardless if you wear a different number with your new team or not.
  21. Love the mark, but I think the whole package would have worked better if they stuck with the light colored helmet (and their signature jersey design).
  22. Womp, womp. When your illustration is this crisp and this rigid, you absolutely *must* nail the details. It’s such a shame because the beer hall style and vibe of the branding, type, and illustration have real promise, but the clunky executional oversights take it down when it’s this simple. Letting the spike in the C return to parallel when the wordmark runs up? Kinda puzzling.
  23. There was plenty of off-the-wall, but the teams still had to be comfortable enough to approve them. Most of the teams erred toward the most classic or conservative option they were shown (one of them was even designed by the team because they weren’t into the options we showed them). While it’s not as off-the-wall as it *could* have been, it’s still a big step for any of these teams to do something like this, let alone all of them.
  24. If I recall, I think I went sans because the crest that actually goes with this jersey used sans serif type (as well as the captain patches). I also thought that if any team had hypothetically worn player names on the back of their jersey in the 1920s or 1930s, the letters would have been as simple as possible because they were all hand-cut. For that reason, sans felt like the better choice on this one. The other Bruins uniforms I put together (inspired by eras a bit later than this one) had serif type, though.