Jump to content

Ted Cunningham

Members
  • Posts

    1,751
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ted Cunningham

  1. I don't mean to be pedantic for the sake of being pedantic, but since this is a forum built around design: It is essentially gothic. "Gothic" is simply another way to refer to a sans-serif alphabet. There's a reason why Century Gothic includes the word "Gothic" in its name. Helvetica, Arial, Futura; they're all gothic typefaces. One could make the argument that the 2 in the Rams numbers technically has a slab serif, but otherwise, that set of numbers is very close Helvetica Bold Condensed. What I'm presuming you're thinking of is blackletter, sometimes referred to as gothic script. While blackletter may be what a lot of people think of when they hear "gothic font", a lot of people also apparently thought that the Bengals uniforms from 2004 to 2020 were essentially the same as those prior to it.
  2. That's it right there. I knew there was something weird about this. I generally like all-white football uniforms. (It's the only "monochrome" look that I like as a rule.) It's a fine uniform in a vacuum. But as we've discussed throughout the history of CCSLC, there is no "in a vacuum" in the real world. So yeah, it's an odd choice for them given their history with Miami and, more importantly, it goes against their established brand. I presume they'll wear this at home, which makes it even more of a head-scratcher.
  3. Same here, @CC97. No need to prorate mine. Thanks!
  4. Hey @CC97, thanks for setting this option up. I've been posting here since 2007, and these boards have been a go-to destination for me consistently since then. So paying a little to support it and getting a better experience in return makes a lot of sense. I signed up roughly 15 minutes ago. My Patreon account is under the email address theodore.j.cunningham at gmail dot com.
  5. Any reason given for Frankfurt not going with purple and orange? (It's good that the identity is returning, but too bad that it's not the same color combination.)
  6. I work in DC frequently and lived there for a while. 1) I've never heard that term before, nor have I heard anyone from DC use it. But 2) I did immediately understand what it was referring to. (Again, likely only because I have experience in/with DC.)
  7. If I'm not mistaken, that goalie's number is 1. The Flyers had some odd 1s back then where the serif (for lack of a better term) came halfway down the number.
  8. I usually hear it go the other way: "Oh, you mean Pittsburgh has a 'Giant Eagle'? You're sure it's not just Giant?" (Giant being a chain of grocery stores in the Mid-Atlantic/Eastern PA/DE/DC/MD.)
  9. That new WS logo has a kind of Web 2.0/early iPhone feel to it.
  10. The numbers are what get me in that concept. Either the concept's creator didn't take the time to ensure the stroke wasn't rounded or else (and worse) the creator chose numbers with rounded corners. While the Viking's uniforms of 2006 to 2012 were pretty bad in total, one element that made them even worse were the inexplicably rounded block numbers. There were no actual corners on those numbers even though they really weren't "round" numbers either. It was as if the designers of those uniforms intentionally looked for ways to make them worse in an almost subliminal way. (I feel like the Cardinals also suffer from this.) And I'm immediately getting the same feeling from this concept's numbers. They're awful and it makes a uniform set that I could potentially live with into something that just makes me question why?
  11. To be clear, this is certainly a valid point. It's not my aesthetic, but it is for others. I just think making it a singular definition of how one views an entire sport's aesthetic (or sports aesthetics, generally?), and going out of one's way to criticize anything that isn't it, is strange.
  12. It's such an oddly specific hill on which to die. And I think it's funny that he makes fun of someone talking about their "paps" playing ball in " '61" in flannel (which is not long before the era of his beloved sansabelt look). Arguing for a look that is fairly singular to one era from 40+ years ago because (ostensibly) it was what was in when he was a kid? It's pretty hypocritcal.
  13. I kind of like that ridiculously huge C Citadel wordmark.
  14. (For some reason, the picture isn't showing up for me. I don't know if others can't see it, but I'll post it for reference.) There are other variations on these two uniforms at this time (with minor differences in striping, explaining the guy with the single red stripe on his pants in that picture a ways back in the thread, and differences in helmet and pants colors). But this was the basic idea and the shadows were only worn in 1955 and 1956. The white jersey was decidedly a "change kit" as opposed to being a regular away uniform. For instance, in 1955, they wore them once against Washington (who was also wearing their darker shade of red). Admittedly, the GUD is a fan-made resource, so it might not be accurate. However, it also strikes me as the kind of pet project that is meticulously researched and cared for, so I'd have to figure it's accurate for the most part. My guess would be that whomever designed the 1994 throwbacks (which, as has been pointed out, are notoriously half-measure, inaccurate throwbacks) kind of guessed the white jerseys were "opposite" of the red jerseys, not realizing the majority of the stripes were actually black. As for the current iteration, I was never quite clear: were they throwing back to '94? If that's the case, the jerseys (and pants, I suppose, too) are accurate. Or was it actually a throwback to the mid 50s? I really like that black drop shadow. I don't know why, necessarily. It kind of feels like one of those quirks of the time: the shadows made the numbers easier to read at distance or something? And as a result, they're grandfathered in? In any event, I think the jerseys look good. But they decidedly clash with the gold helmets and the red-white-red braisher stripes. As I'm thinking about it, does this look weird? Instead of adding gold to the throwback, add the drop shadow treatment to the classic/current uniforms. (I think it at least ties with the black in the logo, but it doesn't go full-on dark-mode like the late 90s 49ers did.)
  15. Just out of curiosity, what would qualify as a better looking, more creative field? (I ask because this field seems pretty standard when compared to the rest; not really any less "creative".)
  16. I'm not sure I see three outlines here. On the teal jersey for example, the numbers have a gold stroke and black stroke, right? Or are you referring to another element? Since the Jaguars went to their minimalist set, I've thought that it wouldn't take much to add back some of the 1990s feel while keeping the basics of the current uniform. This concept very successfully accomplishes that. Nicely done, Lee.
  17. I guess maybe I'll get some flack for this, and I know this is all opinion based. But this really feels like a scorching hot take when the NFL has seen uniforms from the early 2000s. I'd gladly take this Rams look over the red/royal/white/navy/nickel Bills or the "swooshy" pipe-and-panel Vikings. The early 2000s were an era of "just because you can do it doesn't mean you should." To be clear, I am by no means saying that the Rams' uniforms are good. There's a lot of room for improvement. However, I don't think even the all off-white look is "the worst uniform of all time".
  18. I don't know if you can get those two looks to be harmonious simply because the elements that make them what they are don't work together without feeling overdesigned. The argyle is intricate and fussy compared to the almost overly-large, bold stripes of the throwback. The pants stripes match the sleeve stripes match the helmet stripes in terms of line weight on the throwback. Using argyle on two of those elements (pants and helmet) while having plain stripes that don't match anything else on the sleeves would look disjointed. Now I say that with it being my understanding of what you're saying above. Two other options you may mean instead are: Add the argyle to the middle portion of the stripes on the various uniform elements. That, however, is what I meant by "overdesigned" above. That's like saying "I like pickles. I also like cake. I will put pickles on my cake." They just don't go together without feeling obviously forced. Just adding drop shadows to the current uniform and reducing the weight or width of the numbers. That seems like a lot more doable solution, though it would just be the modern look with drop shadows. I'd argue that, besides any nostalgia, what makes the throwback successful is that it includes a fair bit of variation in color because the stripes are so large while still staying within the rough definition of "traditional" stripes. So many college uniforms have plain/solid-color pants sometimes with the addition of (again) fussy, overly-intricate elements that don't necessarily translate well at distance (e.g. team names, piping instead of stripes [though that fad has faded somewhat], logos, patterned stripes, etc.). Seeing big stripes like UNC's (or even just complete waist to knee stripes, generally) is refreshing. And my argument against "fussy" detailed elements isn't even necessarily an indictment of UNC's argyle. I think it works alright for them. I do think argyle is disproportionately viewed as positive on these boards because of so many designers working it into their concepts. But I also don't think it's bad in practice. It's just not the best option for football.
  19. This right here is important. I feel like the general tone on the boards, lately, has been to react to anything one does not like with over-the-top, end-of-the-world-and-all-things-aesthetically-decent reactions like calling people "morons" for going with subpar uniform combinations within a set of uniforms that has been, for the most part, praised. Or reacting with puke emojis or else referring to things that don't fit personal preference with descriptors like "vomit-inducing" (Did you really come close to puking?) Or else dunking on someone else's opinion with cutesy comebacks and owns based only on the poster's own opinion (i.e. no more or less valid). Maybe I am way off base here, but this seems to be way more prevalent lately. If a uniform is so bad, explain why it's so bad. Or if you disagree with an opinion, explain why instead of responding with infinite variations on "yeah, except the opposite!" I hate sounding like "why can't we all just get along" or whatever, and I also acknowledge there's nuance to all of this (some things are simply really bad, etc.). But there are only so many "yeah, except by good, you mean bad!" reactions and puke emojis I can read before starting to discount your thoughts and opinions. ("Ah, I see this guy is an overreactor.") And to be clear, this isn't directed at any specific person. It's just refreshing to see someone else acknowledging an over-the-top response to a uniform decision. I've felt that way for a while and this was an opportunity to express that.
  20. I believe the Mets or Pirates did this at one point for the surname "d'Arnaud". Just flipped a P. It was a bit more effective for that name because there was no E.
  21. Also, this is the correct answer for the Titans' current look: I am pleased to see it. There's a lot wrong with this uniform, but from a broad standpoint, the navy over columbia over white look with the dark numbers outlined in white is a solid look. It's a shame that some of these brands lend themselves to mixing and matching with three essentially color-swapped versions of each element. Everything becomes muddled and inconsistent. Like, what is truly the "default" home look for the Titans? Navy jerseys, sure. But with what pants? (Navy, I guess? That's what they've worn the most with the navy jerseys, but in the history of this particular set, it's not really been consistent.) This is a fair point too. Don't do it just because you can. All white should not be Green Bay's primary away look or even used often. And as I said above, having too many options and mixing and matching dilutes the strength of a brand. However, I don't think it has to be quite so strict ("best" look or don't wear it). "Best" is likely too subjective to make a determination that excludes all other looks. An alternate, when done well and used sparingly, can provide variety without confusing/diluting which look is "default", "classic", or otherwise easily recognizable as a particular team, especially when it's a change to one element (like an alternate color jersey or pair of pants) and not a completely different look (like the Browns' previous color rush set vs their previous main brand). Maybe allowing any alternates is incompatible with brand consistency, strictly by the definitions of the words. But an alternate that makes sense and is used sparingly can add variety to a brand without weakening it.
  22. I agree with this. I realize it might go against tradition, which, aesthetically speaking, is woven into Green Bay's brand. But I think it looks good in the same way that it works for Michigan's away uniforms. Once a year is alright, certainly.
  23. To preface: this isn't an attack directed at you, JTernup. It's simply a counterargument to the views you expressed here. 1) "In life, perfect can be the enemy of good, but in uniform design we shouldn't settle for good when perfect is attainable" This seems contradictory to me, unless you mean to extract uniform design from life generally. If perfect has the potential to work against good, then why would one work to attain perfect at the potential cost of good? (I'll come back to this in a moment.) 2) While the mock-up arguably presents better color balance between the three main uniform elements (which could make it a better uniform in your opinion [I don't think we can say "objectively better" simply because aesthetics rely so heavily on personal taste]), it also deviates from those elements that make Ole Miss look like Ole Miss. Adding another color between the white shoulder hoops is the big one there. Ole Miss football, generally, has had double white shoulder stripes on its color/home jerseys. Yes, there are examples of them with other stripes, but the most identifiable and most used look is the double white shoulder stripes (be that on navy, red, or even powder blue). As for the particular uniform yesterday, the white pants definitely changed the look, arguably, more drastically than the change in jersey color. But because the general idea behind the jersey remained the same, Ole Miss still looked like Ole Miss. I think this is interesting because it gets at a discussion we come back to on these boards from time to time: thinking of the appeal and attractiveness of an identity "in a vacuum" vs. in the context of the look in a team's history (be that context based on success in that uniform, longevity of the look, etc.). The former, "in a vacuum", is "perfect" as you've described above. Sure, a perfect look, applying all of the "generally accepted axioms of good uniform design" (which don't necessarily have to be explicit, but stuff like "color balance", mirrored elements between home and away uniforms, symmetry, etc.) could be attained for every team. However, that ignores the other elements that factor into why identities are successful or "good": identifiability, nostalgia, success, longevity, or simply because it looks cool even if it goes against one of those axioms of good design. In an effort to attain perfect, what makes identities like Ole Miss's good, can get stripped away. For example, adding red between the white shoulder stripes takes away from a key identifying feature of Ole Miss's football uniforms. They also look like Louisiana Tech in the mock-up. The mock-up doesn't have that quintessential Ole Miss look, even if it has arguably better color balance. The look could be improved, but without respect to the context in which the uniform exists and why it looks like it does, it wouldn't be Ole Miss because it doesn't have those characteristics that are tied to Ole Miss's football identity. (As for my own opinion on the uniforms they wore this past Saturday, some others pointed it out above: the regular grey pants would have made more sense. Rough Photoshop:)
  24. One of my favorites that I discovered a few years ago: the 1966 Ottawa Rough Riders. Sleeve stripes only on the right sleeves, and TV numbers oriented toward the front of the jersey. It's a pretty wild uniform, especially for the more traditional mid 60s. The below is a screencap from the 1966 Grey Cup broadcast (which is on YouTube). I had to screencap it because I couldn't find a picture with the whole uniform visible. I also mocked it up so you could get the idea from a flat perspective.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.