Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ltravisjr

  1. My guess is that sports are a safe substitute for combat, and combantants have to be fierce to survive. I am guessing that MLB is different because it isn't a "contact" sport where two "armies" seek to invade eachother's space or shoot something into the eachother's territory.
  2. Agreed. Not only that, and most might disagree, but I always preferred when back in the 70's individual players from the same team even wore their personal choice of one of the team 's alternate unis (I'm especially looking at you Oakland and Pittsburgh).
  3. Sorry, off topic but dang, I'm struck by the difference of the look of the rough edged athlete of the past compared to the athlete of today. Its like sports was war back then but showtime today.
  4. Well, just because they aren't the Griswalds doesn't mean they can't put up some stately white lights and ivy, no pun intended.
  5. Both the Cubs and Sox jerseys make sense to me. There are movies out there where hip hop dancers get together and enter a competition to defeat the popular ballet trained kids who have shunned them for being from the wrong part of town (having a teen daughter I know this lol). The Sox jerseys are meant to evoke that kind sentiment in their fan base. The Cubs jerseys are like those affluent homes who just put up basic white lights at Christmas. They know they don't have to put on a show because everyone knows who they are already.
  6. An early 20th century throwback cap...with a flat brim?
  7. Yep, I humby accept the prize for noticing the obvious. I should probably have said "commented on" rather than "picked up on", because obvious as it is, I think the redundancy played some role in why the Angels chose not to use "Los Angeles" as the city name. Maybe choosing a nickname name other than "Angels" would have been a better choice to deal with it.
  8. I can't believe nobody has picked up on the irony of the name "Los Angeles". Its literally the spanish translation of "The Angels". So in effect, "Los Angeles Angels" means "The Angels Angels". If there were a hispanic promotion day their jersey wordmark would be both city name and the team name.
  9. TAHC was like wearing costumes to the office on Halloween. They aren't "real" clothes and are just a make believe fun. Just for laughs - no harm, no foul. City Connect, sadly, are meant to be real.
  10. For anyone going back to research the actual league for comparison, several teams improved their uniform designs in the second year, particularly the Chicago Blitz and Arizona Wranglers who had also swapped cities with eachother.
  11. Celebrating the city - fine, I get it. Yeah, its also a cash grab but if people wish to purchase, than more power to all. I guess what doesn't work for me is the, for lack of a better term, "urban hip" feel to NBA City unis and hope the MLB doesn't go that route. Maybe that's just what folks identify with and respond to these days, but personally, I'm not that big into urban and I'm definitely not into "hip".
  12. The second from the right on top and the second from the left on the bottom was the design that actually won. The team revised (i.e. watered down) the original design a couple times before the uniform became official. If I were the designer I would have been angry about that but he didn't mind... http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?sportCat=mlb&page=lukas/110324_white_sox_design
  13. I always thought the dot was the baseball, which really made the logo feel awkward.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. 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!
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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...
  23. Pardon the hasty execution, but a quick mock-up of the White Sox script on the home pinstripes...
  24. 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.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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