• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ltravisjr

  1. 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.
  2. No short pants in baseball. No long pants in hockey. No sleeves in basketball.
  3. 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.
  4. Is he wearing a red polo shirt under that jersey?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. It almost as if the Royals are taking the TAHC event literally and using it as a means to float a trial balloon...
  14. If I recall, there were no high numbers at all in the MLB until Carlton Fisk flipped his #27 to #72 when he joined the White Sox. At the time there was a little bit of contention, almost as if folks wondered if was breaking some rule by doing it.
  15. ...or 8 players, with neither a DH or pitcher hitting.
  16. This is a fascinating topic. So I finally found evidence of these jerseys I mentioned in an obscure youtube video. It turns out they did exist but even though I had been remembering them as white and green, they were actually green and orange (starting at the 2:00 mark):
  17. Yes, they were loosely similar. They didn't have the same type of stripe pattern, though. The green area was mostly unbroken.
  18. Mid 1980's, College World Series, I distinctly recall the Miami Hurricanes wearing an alternate pullover jersey that was white from the chest up and green with orange trim below. Unique as they were I wanted to go back and look them up but can't find pictures anywhere. Surprising because the CWS was in a real heyday then.
  19. Hopefully, in the future we will look at today's shoetop length pants the way we look at sansabelts now.
  20. Hi all, I don't don't have the time to contribute here much these days but do check in from time to time. Anyway, I just saw this new tutorial on line and thought you might be interested. -LT
  21. I always felt "lady" elevated and gave more dignity to the team that had the finer, less brutish gender competing. I didn't see it as patronizing, although attaching "Lady" it to a distinctively male name seemed like more an effort to just avoid having to give up an identity when women's teams came into the athletic program. I might be naive on all this though. Maybe nowadays calling out the female sex as being finer and worthy of unique respect (which I considered a compliment) is considered sexist. If so I will have to be more careful because respect does no good if it isn't perceived as respect.
  22. Love the Tortugas look. However, they aren't the only baseball team named after a turtle. The Springfield Sliders of the Propsect league have this logo:
  23. Bulls: Great. No suggestions Chisox: Home fine but the aways have issues: (1)Sox logo on the cap and sleeve is redundant; bring back diamond-sock patch back (2) the pant stripe no longer matches the sleeve trim. (3) I would like to see the wordmark include a tail with "White Sox" spelled out inside it, as they did with their powder blues in the 1970's. Bears: Very good. Creativity without rules to give it context is chaos, and all the panels, swooshes, etc. on NFL uniforms these days is chaos. The Bears remain simple and strong. For me, perfect would be to return to the even simpler Butkus uniforms,
  24. I used to look forward to these coming out each year. They had logos and either illustrations or verbal descriptions of the uniforms. American League Red Book National League Green Book
  25. These are pretty nice uniforms - for today. I really like the Baltimore set, the white Pittsburgh uniforms, and the both Seattle jerseys (although with a different number font). Fifty years from now - I don't think we could possibly imagine what's that far ahead.