andrewharrington

Members
  • Content Count

    9,995
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by andrewharrington

  1. It was set on a concentric arc to the “Oklahoma” lettering. It’s tough to tell because the word is so short, but you can definitely see the letters are rotated at different angles relative to one another.
  2. I think somewhere in between the old size and the current would be nice. Rather than add an additional gold outline for a white background, though, I think simply changing the white outline to gold would be best on white (similar to how the fleur itself gets changed from black to gold for a black background).
  3. I tried to pick two photos with the players roughly the same height, but I didn’t anticipate the auto shrinking of the landscape photo. I still don’t think outlines are the best answer, though. I can understand wanting a black edge on the mark, but at that point, why not just use a solid black fleur on gold? You get the same impact without the fuzziness at a distance (especially if they continue with the lighter gold). If you really need white in the fleur, I think using it to build dimension and form is a better move than simply outlining the shape. Heck, I’d rather see a white fleur with a heavy black outline than a black fleur with a double outline.
  4. Referees don’t use names (they use numbers), so that’s negligible. It’s likely an efficiency thing. No one needs to be spending time setting letters on an arc for summer league. The reason you typically only see this in basketball (or on baseball vests) is because there’s less area in the upper back on a tank or vest, whereas sleeved jerseys have a fuller back/shoulder area to apply a name. The most room on a tank or vest is around the waist, and it’s conducive to straight names, which are easier to set.
  5. Russia used square constructivist-style numbers for the World Cup of Hockey, and the Czechs had numbers with square tops and round bottoms (to mimic their crest):
  6. I can tell how this is going to go, so unless it becomes more productive, I’m going to exit this debate after I respond. 1. The Giants are not relevant to what we’re talking about. There’s no false equivalency to be made there. I only used the Giants as an example of a heritage football brand that’s understandably resistant to build a more contemporary identity. If you’re curious, I do like their look, but I think it could be better. 2. The Saints’ logo has three outlines. The only time it has fewer is on a black background. Personally, I don’t agree they make it noticeable or recognizable. Here’s a good example: The old logo is indisputably clearer and better defined from a distance (despite the photo itself being much less focused). There’s a reason outlines aren’t used as often in non-sports identities; most of the time, they’re just a crutch rather than a functional solution to the problem. 3. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on gold. To me, the new one looks washed out, dingy (especially under the Superdome lights), and most definitely not shiny or realistic. The flat screen print equivalent is equally unappealing, or at least it was back when I worked on NFL stuff. 4. No other team uses gold numbers on their white jersey. That’s essentially the definition of recognizable. Maybe you meant to say readable? In that case, the heavier trim and the darker gold is what made it work. Either way, it was much more unique and it worked fine from a functional standpoint. 5. Why does it matter? It’s design. Coordination amongst the elements is everything. Of course, that does *not* mean everything has to match, but it helps when certain elements coordinate with others. The uniform had balance and flow when the pant stripe complemented the helmet stripe. The current gold pants make it look like they couldn’t afford the ones with the matching stripe. 6. Old gold is simply better in every way with no exceptions. You will never change my mind on this. 7. If it was done well, I would not think it was gimmicky. It doesn’t need a lot, but it needs something. Lastly, I’m not complaining. The Saints are the epitome of “just fine” and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. This is the first time I’ve ever written a critique on the Saints, and it’s because you specifically asked for debate. However, it doesn’t really sound like you want debate; you come across like you just want people to agree with you, for what it’s worth.
  7. The problem with the Saints’ look is that it’s so extraordinarily mediocre in every way. They have decent bones, but one little detail can and does flatten out every part. You say it’s clean, but I find it clunky, messy, and undercooked. They have a truly great logo. It’s an absolute, near perfect icon in concept, and it used to look fantastic as a single color or single outline graphic. Now they insist on adding several outlines to clutter it up. That’s not clean. They used to wear a beautiful old gold color. Now they insist on muting it and taking away all the richness. They used to celebrate gold all over the place (pants, helmet, numbers, stripes). Now they insist on black pants, black numbers, no stripes, etc. Black is certainly one of their main colors, but in my opinion, their identity was much more unique (and, well, saintly) when there was a greater focus on gold and white. They used to have a nice pant stripe that coordinated well with the helmet stripe. Now they insist on a solid black stripe that doesn’t really coordinate with anything (or no stripes at all in the case of the black pants). That big honkin’ collar is the least clean thing I’ve ever seen. Same with the unnecessary, redundant logos on the sleeves and pants. This isn’t NASCAR. The real travesty, though, is that the Saints’ look has very little character or personality. It’s a stock catalog look (heck, it’s even plain by catalog standards) on a team that has so much interesting inspiration at their fingertips. As a team representing a city with such a rich, unique history, they’ve missed a huge opportunity to bring in details of the French architecture, the food, the music, etc. It would be one thing if they felt like an untouchable heritage brand the same way the Packers, Bears, Colts, or Giants do, but they’ve never felt that way to me, and I think they really need to reinvent their look in a tastefully distinctive way. All it would take is some experimentation with color and (possibly) stripes, and just a little custom decoration in the same vein as what the Pelicans (and before that, the Hornets) employ.
  8. I’d assume they would switch the logo, but I honestly don’t know what their plans are. I’m not sure it matters, though. There are several teams across sports who have had a primary logo they didn’t prefer to use. For a hockey team, whatever is on the front of the jersey usually becomes the de facto primary (unless you’re the Rangers).
  9. For what it’s worth, every single time a team briefs a project (in any sport), some variation of “inspired by the past/built for the future” is in the brief somewhere. It’s a natural byproduct of internet comments becoming a primary means of critiquing design, and it’s resulted in a “follow the formula or risk stoking the ire of Twitter” mindset throughout the industry. No one wants to take a risk when there’s so many dollars and reputation points on the line.
  10. Well, anything red, white, and blue is “inspired” by the U.S. flag. What makes something blue and bronze *more* inspired than something red, white, and blue? Isn’t it equally inspired, just by a more obscure piece of federal imagery? The very first identity I drew up when we worked on that project had a tile wordmark. What a shame no one thought that was a good idea back then. Sports design is full of missed opportunities.
  11. It’s notoriously difficult to protect the design of plain letterforms and typefaces. They’d have to show the court that their F is so unique or so associated with the school that the end result would inevitably cause confusion, and both color and proximity factor into that. UF would have a good proximity argument, but I think they’d lose on color, because FT would argue that there’s no way in heck anyone would ever mistake a garnet-colored logo as belonging to UF.
  12. I associate it with Wilson, but it’s entirely possible that it was originally Russell’s. I’m sure there was a lot of borrowing, possibly also some teams that simply insisted on using the same numerals after a manufacturer change (much the same way we have Nike branded Colts and 49ers jerseys, currently on-field, using Wilson block numbers), and of course, even though manufacturers typically employed a stock block style, they also used other typefaces. Maybe it was era-specific, or maybe it was even some dude at the Broncos who didn’t like the weird 6 and 9, and Wilson made a unique variation for them. I think it would be really interesting to talk to someone who used to work at one of the big players in a previous generation of uniform manufacture.
  13. Whether they have serifs or not (and regardless of anyone’s personal opinion on the vibe that is projected by the presence or absence of serifs), it still comes down to the form, proportion, and cohesion with the other numbers in the set. Naturally, I have a short list of critiques, but overall, I think the Yankees do pretty well here: The arm of the 3 is a little short, creating too much negative area in the number. The 4 feels a tiny bit too heavy, and the elbow is maybe a touch too stubby. Lastly, I’ve never liked the chamfered inside corner on the ends of the 6 and 9. Despite this being the easiest (sometimes only) way to identify Wilson’s block number set from other manufacturers’ sets, it’s always stood out as very strange and clunky since the other numbers all have square inside corners on pieces like that. On these, I would say the same thing about the arm of the 3 and elbow of the 4. I would also point out that the flat bottom of the 2 makes it look too wide, and the slant of the 7 is a little extreme, making it also look quite wide in comparison to the others. The overall aesthetic of these, though, is just not something I’m into, at least not the way it’s employed in MLB. Removing the serifs can add a clean, elegant quality to a number set, but I think that elegance is lost again when all the corners are double chamfered, like you’re taking away one pocket from the formal shirt but adding two more somewhere else. They look very “local screen print shop” to me. That’s not inherently bad if a couple teams are using that look to support the vibe of the brand they’ve built, but it feels a little cheap when so many teams do it.
  14. Pant stripes, though great looking, would not be accurate for the championship era:
  15. Actually, yes, this is an important clarification. I should have said they didn’t screw up the basic design of it (because they knew what would have happened if they did), but they did indeed screw it up with all the little adjustments, every one of which made the helmet worse, with the possible exception being the thicker stripe. I don’t hate the brown mask (I preferred grey paired with the traditional look) but the red-orange, the matte finish, and the carbon fiber texture are not welcome.
  16. Source? The one thing they didn’t screw up in the redesign was the helmet, and everyone involved very clearly acknowledged that the helmet will never change when talking about the redesign in the media. There’s absolutely no way they will have a white helmet next year. I’ll Venmo you money for a beer if I’m wrong.
  17. Why would you give up your best and most recognizable visual asset? That’s brand suicide. Two of their division rivals wear black helmets as well, which makes that take even more puzzling.
  18. Seems redundant to me. The only exception in my eyes is if they’re incorporated into a mark that’s both aesthetically strong *and* complementary to the main logo, not just a lazy repeat of something in it. Leave those things for media and merch. Bottom line is if you add a logo to a uniform, it needs to accomplish something that the main logo doesn’t already do. Adding clutter does not make a uniform better. It just makes it more cluttered.
  19. The biggest thing that bugs me about the current uniform is the reversing of the tiger stripes. It makes no sense for them to be orange on black. You’ve fixed that here. Well done.
  20. This looks like a page you make when your client is down to the final three choices and has to pick a primary logo to move forward in the process. All circles everywhere. Really, really strange way to build a balanced aesthetic toolbox.
  21. The swords by themselves look like a pair of Fiskars scissors. In general, logos on breezers are pretty useless; it’s just more clutter on what is already one of the most complex uniforms of any sport.
  22. The material is the difference. Primeknit A1 is made of a stretchy knit material. WVN A1 is made of a stretchy woven material. Knits get most of their natural stretchiness from the structure, the pattern in which the yarn is looped over itself to create the fabric. A woven is made of multiple yarns that cross over each other in various patterns, and thus are inherently less stretchy in their structure. Stretchiness in a woven typically has to come from blending elastic fibers into the yarns, resulting in the need for more cut-and-sew panels for construction and targeted ventilation I think the Primeknit A1 is still the “flagship” uniform because of its seamless engineering and unique technology (in the football market), but the woven version adds a nice second-tier option that was previously absent.
  23. When that happens it’s typically less of a conscious choice and more of a “lost in translation/telephone game” type of thing.