Htown1141

Members
  • Content Count

    888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Htown1141 last won the day on October 5 2018

Htown1141 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,472 All Star

5 Followers

About Htown1141

  • Rank
    Am I respected around here?

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    H-town, naturally

Recent Profile Visitors

8,042 profile views
  1. Take the lion off the sleeves and it works (Also reminds me of BrandMooreArt’s project, which is a good thing). The bears colors don’t really work with Browns-style striping, but I understand that the concept is exactly the same without changing the sleeve stripes. If you’re going to change the bears, go big and do something that isn’t as simple as swapping the stripes. I like some of this series, other parts are perplexing, but I’m here for the ride. Keep it up!
  2. I will be coming back to this again I swear but here's a preview of another team I guess? I'll go back and make a new redleg, but overall I'm happy with my Reds look.
  3. This is coming from an "Oilers name should stay in Houston" guy, but the history was wronged. It's cool if a city wants to celebrate city heroes (especially if they never played in the relocated city), but don't forge record books to make people feel better. If the Oilers name came back to Houston, it would still be asinine to call Earl Campbell the franchise's leading rusher, just as it is to call Muggsy Bogues or Larry Johnson members of the same franchise as Gerald Wallace and Kemba Walker. They're not.
  4. It's Earl Thomas in a poorly swapped Ravens uniform. That's the Seahawks font
  5. The guy who makes all of the uniforms on wikipedia is probably the least accurate person on the planet. Take his work with a heavy grain of salt.
  6. did not know that! Here I am ripping people for lack of historical accuracy AND YET... I'm the clown here. If that's the case, I'd love to see something maybe involving the three fleur de lis inside the shield which is used on the LA City Seal, along with the other things i had to say Anyways, I'd love to see the Athletics in R/W/Navy and without the "'s" in their monogram, but everything staying the same, because Johnson didn't mess with the design of the team. It wasn't until Charlie Finley bought the team in '63 that they switched to kelly green and athletic gold. Also, it's Texas.
  7. But seriously, I think a few of these decisions are a little bit mind boggling. LA Stars: I'm gonna combine some of my Stars and Browns critiques because neither truly represents a modern baseball aesthetic nor do they properly give the impression of Los Angeles. The Stars shouldn't use a retro style LA with the exact same interlocking design as the "Yankees of the West" Browns, it's a bad look and disingenuous. Speaking of being a browns rip off, the Stars shouldn't use the colored placket, as the uniform worn by the Browns at the time of the move had a colored placket (they wore it in the '44 series as well). It would once again look weak of them to copycat the Browns on 2 separate things. Their primary logo is weak and feels extremely flat with that gold circle, I'd suggest something like this: Quick but effective fix that I think opens things up a lot more, as well as balances white a lot better. I like the use of sublimation, but it directly contrasts the old-timey colored placket with too many stripes and the tuscan monogram. I think you should go with something in a more modern style but thats just my opinion ig. Speaking of modern style, I think the city home plate uniform is pretty cool, but i'd love to see a shiny silver added into the design, because of like "silver screen" and movies or smthn idk. Sand Diego Whales: I mean they're good. Don't really have anything to say about them. incorporate light blue more into the home uniform because it feels out of place (even though it's the color of the away, which doesn't super count because powder clue uniforms are common for teams who don't have it in their color scheme. Los Angeles Browns: So to make the arguments I'm about to make, I'm going to assume Donald Lee Barnes doesn't sell the team to Richard Muckerman, who makes some uniform changes to the team in 1946. With that said, Those Browns uniforms are extremely weak. IRL, Barnes changed uniforms in '39 to include a colored and striped placket, and they weren't changed until he sold the team. I doubt that he would've changed uniforms to be plain placketed, but ya never know. I like the contiinued use of drop shadow, as the Angels wore a uniform with a drop shadow the same season. I don't think brown and orange would've stayed the color scheme until today, however. I like @_DietDrPepper_'s idea of brown and gold, but maybe add red in there maybe as a teritary color? The Fleur de Lis makes no sense in Los Angeles. The reason they used it in STL was because the city was named after French King Louis IX. I'd remove it and if you can't think of a logo, just leave the sleeve blank. The homeplate jersey is loud, but I don't think in a good way. It gives me a greater impression of a fan jersey or a style jersey than an actual uniform. If you wanna make streetwear, make streetwear. But don't pass it off as a professional baseball uniform. I only nitpick because I like this series. Keep up the good work!
  8. okay I love the Dodgers but I have one question for the giants. If you have the redwood “O” mark, could you promote that over the standard “O” mark and then have the alternate hat be the same idea but with the Oakland tree? Solid work on Cleveland, but a few notes because I guess I’m just that guy for this thread: 1. How do you think the stadium situation would work out? I mean I love the Art Deco aesthetic but that would be something you *really* have to commit to to do right. I don’t think they’d stay in league park if that’s the case, but what would Municipal look like at that point? Also, what do you think Jacobs and the 94 rebrand would’ve looked like, as the neoclassical trend was in full swing (but that aesthetic heavily clashes with the Guardians name and the statues’ style)Idk just curious 2. I don’t really get Art Deco out of the look. I assume you took the ‘94 rebrand as the starting point, which is fair, but I’d say that since the scripts and uniforms were drawn up in the 90’s, maybe try to get a little more thematic with it? 3. I don’t like the C around the guardian face. Love the face tho. The outside just feels out of place, and I feel like maybe the face could stand on its own? Just throwin out ideas. 4. “The Land” is tacky, baseball uniform our not. I think a similarly styled uniform with just “Cleveland” written on the front would be cool, but you do you fam excited for what’s to come!
  9. If i were to use a specific jersey material for historical accuracy, how would you want me to explain that?
  10. 46-52, the Boston braves had the tomahawk logo. Just sayin ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Still lost on why Giants still move to San Fran, as the only reason why the team really moved out west in the first place (instead of somewhere in the midwest) was because O'Malley convinced Stoneham to move out to the west coast with him (because the NL wanted two west coast teams). Don't know where or if they should move in this timeline, maybe the Indianapolis stars move to San Fran instead of LA in the federal league, as the browns are already out there? Idk just trying to think.
  11. Wait, if the braves stay in Milwaukee, how do the hammers have that exact same style of uniform? That doesn’t make sense to me. I’d actually suggest repurpose bits of the Twins looks, past and present, because that’s where the sens originally moved. Also, any reason why the Senators moved to Atlanta instead of Minnesota?
  12. The Terps are cool, and I think colored always are fine. I’d love to see an updated version of that turtle with a diamond on its back, idk how or what but it’s a cool design. Quick note: with the Dodgers still leaving, the Tip-Tops should definitely keep the Brooklyn moniker to capture that fanbase.
  13. Do I realllllly wanna say something here? Yeah, I guess. This is not a political issue. The news is being reported here, nothing more. Our commentary here is what would make it “political”, but the statement that the EPL is making is an apolitical one, as the organization BLM isn’t a big deal in the UK. In America, however, saying that black people matter is somehow political because an organization has the same name as a common slogan? I just don’t understand why so many people continue to only look at the movement against racism through the lens of a single organization? How brain dead do you have to be to deny people the right to fight against injustice just because the movement they support (the movement being anti-racism) is also supported by a group completely separate from them that sometimes makes questionable choices? Are people trying to be purposefully dense so they don’t have to engage with the situation or acknowledge their privilege, or are they just naturally that dumb? As for what they’ll do? Since it’s the same nameplate for everybody who decides to switch, my guess is they’ll use a condensed version of their current NOB font and make sure it sizes appropriately to a standard jersey. There’s no reason for it to look stupid or curl around the numbers if it’s a preset NOB (which is what it looks like it'll be). EDIT: I read the EPL statement, but essentially it's optional. Both points still stand.