• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

973 profile views
  1. Gold: 8 Silver: 5 Bronze: 4
  2. I'm loving this series so far, especially the updates as well. I love the Munich Monks especially. The German name for Munich is München, which comes from an old German word "Munichen," which means "by the monks" (thanks Wikipedia for confirming this for me). A monk appears on the coat of arms and is a great name for the team because the city name itself refers to the monks that lived in a monastery on the land that would later become the Old Town of Munich.
  3. For New York, how would it look if the tower became the helmet stripe and your interlocking NY became the helmet decal? Just a thought. I've followed this thread for awhile and love it all. Great job!
  4. Something like this? Apologies for the rather rough nature of the logo... I used the Bucks' green, but tried to fit blue in (you can still see it a bit in the cap), but it wasn't quite working as I would've liked.
  5. @SFGiants58, I’m a big fan of all the work you do designing and the amount of research that goes into your concepts. I just wanted to say that upfront and thank you for your well thought-out response. My point with the Blue Jays specifically is that their redesign arguably improved upon the look they based it upon. Their word mark is clean, the logo looks amazing, etc. All improvements in my book. They took the old look and brought in a “cleaner,” somewhat more modern take of it. The redesign also brought in a brighter blue and red than what the team wore between 1997 and 2011. Those looks were rather dreary. The return to simplicity was a welcome return. With both the Astros and Brewers relying heavily upon navy in their word marks and dark roundels, their looks feel dreary. Do I think that the re-integration of orange and yellow-gold into the Astros and Brewers’ respective looks is good? Yes, but I think it’s lost in the navy-heavy identities. Over a third of MLB has navy in their primary logos and that's excessive. I also applaud the daring “Milwaukee” script as well as the attempt at modernizing and bringing back several old logos. However, none of the new or updated logos feel “fresh” to me. Maybe the new Barrel Man, but that’s not even being used on the jerseys as of now! The Blue Jays "look like themselves again," and it looks great! My nitpick of their look would be that it is really similar to what they've had before, but I can live with that because their update was so well done. The Astros and Brewers haven't reached their potential in my books, and their updates didn't emphasize the best parts of their previous looks, that being the bright orange and yellow-gold respectively. If they went back to their original colors, that would make them look like themselves again, but they could've then created new logos that were brighter, less heavy on the navy, and ones that would stand out and bring new fans to the team. The '90s designs of the Astros and Brewers weren't that great because the colors were all dark and didn't capture both clubs' identities well. However, their new looks are still too dark. I use brighter not necessarily to argue for a lighter shade of orange for the Astros, for example, but for more of the orange and less of the navy so that the logo feels more clean and fresh. With the Rockies, you make a good point -- more purple would improve their identity greatly, not necessarily a brighter purple. I didn't think much about the brand equity of the looks, but that's also a good point to make. The Astros and Brewers are trying to dig into their past looks to be more like what they before, but I'd argue they can accomplish that through re-using their colors from the '70s and well-timed throwbacks, instead of just recycling old logos. The throwbacks avoid the problem where fans are frustrated with the updates, though it could also make the fans clamor for their current look to be more like the throwbacks... I'm glad that the Brewers, Astros, and Padres have made steps to address their past looks that were obviously faulty. They each have clear identities, as both of you have said, and that's admirable and something to celebrate. However, my main problem with this new Brewers set is the same as your issue with the Astros -- they feel bland and that's what frustrates me. The Padres update and the Blue Jays don't feel bland.
  6. Great points, Lights Out. I think it's perfectly acceptable and understandable to want the old looks -- they're classic looks for a reason. Teams with classic looks, like the Red Sox and Yankees, are amazing identities, yet these attempts to create or re-create classic looks don't sit well with me. I'd prefer to see them as throwbacks, rather than old looks being slightly changed and advertised as "new" identities. I'd love to see looks that are new and interesting because of how they stand out, rather than ones that just fit into "the crowd," as you say. Leave the classic looks to the teams that have had classic looks for decades uninterrupted and take the opportunity to create something new to break out of the mold. I also recognize that the Marlins rebrand didn't go over well with me and they went down a completely new path with their new identity last season, but I enjoyed the attempt by the D-Backs with their snakeskin pattern (which seems to be an unpopular opinion, but whatever). Yet, rebranding through modifying past looks is getting overdone. The Orioles did it with the cartoon logo, the Blue Jays did it the best with their logo and word marks (which I think the Astros and Brewers saw and wanted to emulate), but now the Astros and Brewers have taken it to an extreme. In the era of "Let the kids play," let's emphasize teal for the D-Backs, a brighter purple for the Rockies, something more daring for the Rays, a more colorful look for the Mariners... I don't know, maybe I'm getting carried away now, but my point is that I want new looks, not recycled logos from the 70s and 80s.
  7. I've been following this thread for awhile, figured it's about time to throw in some thoughts of my own. My reaction to the release of the Brewers' redesign was mixed. While I like the new look in general and I think it's a commendable move by the Milwaukee organization to connect with what their fans want, it feels a bit boring. Now, boring isn't necessarily bad. The D-Backs and Marlins in recent years have faced backlash when they've tried to not fit into the "traditional" look, the D-Backs with their snakeskin pattern and the Marlins with making their primary (or most-used) color black and their wonky scripts with drop shadows. With that in mind, I can see why the Brewers followed the trend that has worked recently -- basing their identity on past looks. The thing that struck me when I first saw the leaked logo via the Topps card was the similarity to the Astros logo, which was released before the 2013 season. Like the Astros, the Brewers' colors and word marks are remarkably similar to what they've had before. The Brewers former cap logo and primary logo, the BiG, which many have discussed in this thread, had slight alterations made and then smacked right in the middle of the new primary logo, as well as on the new caps. The Astros took a former cap logo of theirs and did the same, putting it in the middle of a roundel and then on caps. I made this somewhat shoddy infographic to illustrate my points. Basically, it feels boring that the Brewers did this because the Astros already did something very similar! The roundels even look rather similar, like someone followed a template on how to take an old logo and make it "new" by adding a bevel or messing around with lines and then putting it in a couple circles. So anyways, I'm disappointed because I would've liked to see the Brewers try to be a bit more original, rather than recycling and slightly changing what they had decades ago. The new font is a step in the direction, as well as the BarleyBall, but it feels too much like they copied the Astros strategy (though hopefully not their sign-stealing strategies...) and didn't look into a proper, unique redesign. And lastly, one last gripe! I wish they had consistent striping throughout the set of uniforms and found a way to either involve the royal blue more or get rid of it entirely. Oh, and powder blue throwbacks. EDIT: I just realized that "2020-now" is a bit confusing since it's not actually 2020 yet...
  8. The Barrelman has come back, with "a bit of an edge," as the face is meaner. There's also a Wisconsin state logo and a wheat logo ball.
  9. The primary logo is what Topps had on its card
  10. Watching the livestream... quit recounting the history of the club and show me if there are new uniforms please! EDIT: Sounds for sure like the team is bringing back the BiG logo.
  11. Dang, I really like your presentation. The return to purple-red is a great look, as was the decision to darken the purple. For the Drake-inspired jersey, I wonder if a white outline of the black letters would help that and the numbers stand out more. It'd then be black lettering with a white outline and then a gold outline around that for the "Raptors" script and then white around the gold number. I'm excited to see more!
  12. I also am a fan of the top left option. The drop shadow works very nicely and I love the three colors together. My number two option would be the bottom right, but as is I think the outlines are almost too thick on that word mark.
  13. I'm a big fan of the new color scheme for the Rockies, as well as the logo change. I find myself really liking the double outline of the word mark and number on the back of the home alternate while also a little thrown off by the red on the home and the way. Could we see an update where the home and away jerseys have the wordmarks double outlined with the number on the front and the back in blue with the double outline? Great work on this series regardless of my critiques. I've really enjoyed reading through the thread and I'm glad to see you're back!