-Akronite-

Members
  • Content Count

    767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

782 Starter

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Bronze! Okay, yeah. I feel like bronze basically looks like a darker copper and, like pewter, has brownish tones/looks brown. I'm not trying to "gotcha," I just want to see how you are distinguishing the colors differently than I do. Again, you can argue that it's more accurate to pewter. And you can certainly prefer the use of shiny fabrics (I personally find them ugly). But yeah, I think there's clearly some brownish tones in the old pewter. Silver becomes gray without the metallic aspect, but I'd argue that silver inherently has grayish tones. Same applies to pewter and brown IMO. And because the new matte finish is darker than the old one, shiny fabric or no, the brown stands out much less to me. Anyway, I think we can move on.
  2. How would you describe pewter as a color, outside of calling it metallic or dull?
  3. I'm not arguing about the design, people are free to prefer one look over the other. I'm not even arguing that the new color/matte is better, as that's a matter of opinion. Hell, I'd even concede that the new look, in certain lighting, does come off like a dark brown. And whether the old color was a more accurate pewter is not really the question here. I'm just not sure how you can look at those two and claim that the old one was less brown/tan. I mean, how would you describe pewter? Yes it's metallic, but do you think the old fabric looks like a dark gray or some sort of gold or what?
  4. Pewter is a metal, yes. And depending on the source of the coloring, it does have that tan/brown hue in it. You can argue that the old color is more metallic or a more accurate pewter or simply that it looks better. In some lighting, I do see what you mean in terms of the new fabric also looking like a dark brown. But in terms of which looks more brown/tan, the pictures speak for themselves.
  5. I suppose we just have to agree to disagree, because the post right above yours illustrates my point exactly. The matte looks far more like a dark gray while the old look has a tannish brownish hue.
  6. I feel like this discussion has been had before, but I see it as the opposite. The old pewter on the shiny fabric looked brown in certain lighting, part of why I always found it kinda ugly. The current matte consistently looks dark gray.
  7. I wouldn't mind a return to kelly but I like the midnight green. The issue with the Eagles current identity IMO is the over-reliance on black. They could eliminate black entirely and just focus on the dark green and bright silver for a cleaner look.
  8. I'll clarify, since my point didn't get across apparently. The shape of the logo is odd, as the feather overlaps and it has a strange weight balance compared to most sports logos. The concept, a realistic depiction of a suave man's head with a big feather on top, sucks in my opinion, regardless of whether we want to applaud them for going literal. And this is regardless of whether they want to make him look happy, cool, intimidating... It's all lame. Most human mascots/logos look bad, especially compared to monograms, animals, etc. For instance, the Raiders have a classic logo but the head is straight up ugly (kinda fitting for the Raiders but I digress). Plenty will disagree but to me there isn't a single Bruce concept that comes anywhere close to the original or current flag logos.
  9. Saints Cowboys got hosed! ... Okay not really, #1 is gorgeous. But I'd bump them to #2.
  10. I think a lot of these updates to Bruce are really well done. Unfortunately, Bruce sucks as a logo IMO. Odd dimensions and a bad concept IMO. Just fix the number font and ditch the chrome facemask (optional IMO).
  11. A great look is a great look. The kelly is fun but the dark green is simply superior IMO.
  12. I would agree. The Jets have never had a great logo and it's a lateral move on that end for me. The black in the identity is unnecessary altogether. I don't weight facemasks as heavily as many here.
  13. The Seahawks are one of the few instances where I'm okay with monochrome, all they need is navy pants. It works with the navy jersey, matches the helmet, just works. They don't need the gray pants, and don't really need the jersey either.
  14. Surprised the Browns color rush vs the Rams compromise jerseys didn't make the worst list. Overall not feeling any qualms this week, though I'd probably go 2-3-1.
  15. I would agree if that was my stance, but to be clear it isn't. My point is that logos, big AND small, get obstructed partially by vents and straps. I'm not bothered by it enough to dislike the big Bucs logo, which IMO looks great.