ltravisjr

Members
  • Content Count

    933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Prospect
  1. I am old enough to remember this series of commercials for New York Life but was young enough then that I actually thought this was a real football team, and that the uniforms were cool...
  2. Regarding the White Sox, the shorts were a brief experiment but the standard home uniform was still originally white over navy and roads were navy over navy (!). The navy pants were just one more reason they looked ridiculous to me. However, in a couple years they went with navy over white for home or away and made me think they looked like they finally had a "real" uniform (collars, shirttails, and no stirrups notwithstading). Shortly thereafter they evolved to a white over white combo at home, which was even better. In short, the point is that color over white (or gray) seems "normal" to me. Pants that aren't white or gray look like an abberation. FWIW I didn't mention powder blue because to me that's essentially gray for a baseball uni. Its not an identity color but just a backgound color.
  3. Frankly, I would start with good old fashioned pencils and paper. You don't want the learning curve of software hampering your creativity. Not speaking for the others, usually logos are hand-drawn anyway before they are scanned, traced, and refined in the software. That said, as far as software goes, I would suggest a vector program, and rather than invest in Adobe Illustrator right off the bat, go with Inkscape, which is free and has all the capabilities you would need as a beginner. The concepts of paths, curves, fills, etc., are pretty fundamental to any of the vector programs.
  4. No short pants in baseball. No long pants in hockey. No sleeves in basketball.
  5. Now digital art is at best an occasional hobby for me. That said, when I deal with offset paths, I make the larger path its own shape behind the smaller one and tweak things like vertices and serifs because the offset path tool can exaggerate things or otherwise not look quite right. Knowing that, I just cannot "unsee" the curved bottom of that "N". Its like the only reason its that pronounced is because that's what the offset tool caused. Again, and you can tell by my rather poor terminology, I am no professional in illustration software but even I can see that problem.
  6. Is he wearing a red polo shirt under that jersey?
  7. I guess its the nostalgia value but I do agree. What's worse is that they took what was a bad logo and made it even worse. It is hopelessly generic now because the original logo never had the batterman separate from the block "SOX" beneath it. Never. Never ever. The bottom of the batterman torso even had a point protruding down to fill the void space of the "X" underneath. It wasn't the logo with a separate wordmark under it. The wordmark was integral to the logo and is what connected it to the team. Also, this logo was never black and white. Never ever ever. It was blue and red, the colors of the team then.
  8. The funny thing is, back in the 70’s-80’s I didn’t really think of the powder blue as a “color” per se. It was just a neutral, as we think of road gray now. Perhaps that is because it wasn’t part of a team’s brand, but just the blank “canvas” of a standard road set. I contrast that with the all maroon Indians, monochrome yellow Pirates, etc. of that era, which garner a totally different “out of the box” perception than the monochrome powder blues.
  9. I grew up in the seventies so my perspective is different. Powder blues and pullovers were practically obligatory and except for a handful of stalwart teams that always wore grey, when other teams started going grey it was novel and welcome. Also, since it was a pullover era, spoon piping was very rare and I welcomed seeing another team or two adopt them. Now, however, spoons are so ubiquitous that I almost get sick of seeing them appear in new branding. Back to the powder blues, they were so standard that there were some I preferred and some not. I liked the lighter more saturated versions and the White Sox of the early 70’s were maybe the best example. They were very bright, true powders and the blue contrasted well with the red and white. Ironically, they predated pullovers as they were zippered with belts and were actually their “traditional” unit before the awful collared pullover pajamas that followed.
  10. Ahh now that's what I'm talking about. Given this, I think the DC logo works well as a cap logo. If its going to be for a major league team, I would make the crown of the cap dark though. I am on the fence on the wordmark fonts. I think the "Nationals" and the "Washington" marks should be the same font. I am not sure but I *think* I prefer the "Nationals" font since it matches the DC and is not overly stylized (MLB teams are pretty conservative). The bird seems out of place. You might not need it but if you want it, it should probably use the same colors as the rest of the set.
  11. Ok looks good, but by "a home" I don't just mean a theme. You nailed that. I hear patriotism loud and clear. What I need is the situation. "Celebrating baseball and freedom in our nations capitol." Ok, that's cool. Now how? With a baseball logo? Ok then, going with that, a baseball logo is for a baseball team, so... who is the team? Maybe an unaffilated minor league team called DC Patriots? A rebranded Washington Nationals? A special celebrity team called the "DC Eagles" that tours in 2039 celebrating baseball's bicentennial? See what I mean? You have done the hard work. Now just put it on a team so we an imagine it in play.
  12. Good idea but I think the Hancock building would have been better. It's symmetry, tapered height, and diagonals would have lent themselves nicely to this design and it is a unique and recognizable Chicago building.
  13. This is the best version yet. You could really call the design itself finished. However, I think I might see why the concept feels "generic" despite the clever idea. The finished logo needs some sort of context other than just "DC baseball". When a logo is designed, its job is to present or hype the team or organization it stands for. It "brands" the team and its identity. Someone needs to wear the hat, after all. However, at this point this logo isn't presenting a team, it is simply presenting itself. All you have to do is find a home for it. My first thought would be as a basis for team hats for the annual Congressional Baseball game. Whether its that or something else, you need to get a story behind the logo to elicit some sentiment beyond "cool design idea" and have the logo tell a story about something other than itself. Find that home and its a winner.
  14. I have only one suggestion: lose the seams that overlap the ball's outline. Consider extending the fills of the letters over those parts instead if necessary. I just think that the outline of the ball should contain the whole ball, seams included. Once that's addressed, I think you can call this one done, and well earned.
  15. It almost as if the Royals are taking the TAHC event literally and using it as a means to float a trial balloon...