• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ltravisjr

  1. I always thought the dot was the baseball, which really made the logo feel awkward.
  2. I get how the authenticity and quality of a jersey can make one willing to spend a premium. On the other hand I recall a White Sox jersey day once in the early 70's. It was a Dick Allen red pinstripe and nothing more than a cheap printed T shirt - yet it was the favorite jersey of any I had owned.
  3. Yes, I actually wonder if there might be a difference. The uniform database is an online exhibit of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. I figure the HOF has an agreement of sorts with MLB for fair use of the identities of its teams. Nike isn't a team so I wonder if they need to be brought on board when the HOF decides to show its trademark. I don't see why they would object since its free advertising by way of a non-profit. Its probably not a big deal but I just wondered.
  4. Yeah I can see the logic of how it should be included in the illustrations. If it is meant to document what exactly was worn, yes. I just can't get past the fact the swoosh effectively sits *over* the team's identity as an advertisement for a company, not to promote the team, but to promote itself. Not only that, but it doesn't distinguish the particular team since they all have it. Instead, if teams chose their own sponsors, I can see the value in documenting them on dtt9's. I would hate it, but it would make sense to me. But yeah, towards the goal of documenting 100% accurately, I see the point. I wonder, though, would there be any copyright issues with dtt9's rendering Nike's trademark?
  5. This is my thinking as well. The swoosh isn't part of the team's identity. Said another way, will the swoosh be included in the illustrations in the MLB Dressed to the Nines Uniform Database? No - at least it better flippin not be! Said still another way, when my team takes the field, I am NOT cheering Nike!
  6. Agreed. Powder blue should be a road color just like gray. It was never an identity color but was instead a neutral canvas the team's identity sat on. My question: what happens if a team adopts powder blue road uniforms and have no alternates? Does Texas, being the home team, get to dictate that the road team wear white when they host them? Whatever happened to the official rule that teams wear white at home and "some other color" on the road? Alternates have bent those rules pretty badly, but at least the home teams wore white pants.
  7. Point well taken on the Jays. However, the artist behind the original Jays logo appreciated the new rendition but did not like the fact that outline of the ball no longer doubles as the stem of the maple leaf. I agree with him and it illustrates the fact that the original designs often have particular reasons for being exactly as they were.
  8. The change in the ball placement is something I can live with. It always looked like the original had the ball *too* high. When I first had that lights on moment that there was an M and a b in there I thought it was genious but never thought it was a seamless rendition of the letter "b" because of it. Ideally, I would have liked to ball to be a little raised but not so much as in the original logo. It might be the same principle I learned in writing class where the title of your cover page is supposed to be just a little bit above center since that is what pleases the eye. As far as the two stitches - I have to let it sink in a bit; I'm not sure. The webbing connecting the m and b - horrible! The genious of the logo is that two distinct letters by their own merits can so perfectly suggest a glove. Now, it as if they had to "help" the glove-look by adding that extra piece. Downgrade. Plus, its visually unappealing. I don't know how, but it makes the letters seem in conflict. Its like something is trying to pull them together now. Ugh.
  9. Before all the swooshes, panels, etc. hit the NFL, the Colts changed up pant striping just enough to be innovative. Dallas also put a number on their pants in the mid 80's which added some flair but kept the integrity of the traditional pant stripe.
  10. Does a fauxback need to be an alt to qualify? I am guessing so because the late 80's versions went reached back to borrow from the WWII era uniforms, yet weren't called "fauxbacks". The same goes for the late 70's uniforms which borrowed heavily from several past uniforms, especially regarding the wordmark. My opinion is that this "new" wordmark is something of a brand refinement. A brand encapsulates the vision, values, feel, etc. of an organization by visually communicating its personality. The old Comiskey era Sox had a definite personality which has been, for better or worse, sanitized since the move to the (then) new stadium. I don't know if such a refinement its the intent of the team or designer but I think the effect is to tap back into that a little. Is that "faux"? I really don't know but to me "faux" means "fake" whereas the feel of the 1970's-1980's team was very real. Is it a good strategy to tap back into that? I don't know that either. In fact, I don't even know if such an attempt will work or be attractive and well received. I guess we will see...
  11. Pardon the hasty execution, but a quick mock-up of the White Sox script on the home pinstripes...
  12. According to the studio’s website, “The style of the wordmark pulls elements from the prior "White Sox" script logos as well as characteristics from the current "Chicago" script. It features minor bumps and hiccups along the contours of the letters as a nod to the imperfections of baseball's rich aesthetic history while still creating a unique mark with its own distinguished personality.” To me, the new “White Sox” mark has a subtle laid back, retro vibe. Maybe it’s just me, but it feels like something from the crazy old Comiskey days. That said, it looks like it would be tough to pull it off with the road mark because it is so well executed as you show.
  13. I would be good with that but I know the current road script is pretty popular.
  14. Yes, this is a brand new font but it feels like its from the old Comiskey Park era.
  15. Good call if true. Its a surprise to me but they have developed a full custom don't and everything.
  16. ???...
  17. 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...
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. No short pants in baseball. No long pants in hockey. No sleeves in basketball.
  21. 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.
  22. Is he wearing a red polo shirt under that jersey?
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.