Jump to content

NicDB

Members
  • Posts

    1,737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by NicDB

  1. Bill Veeck tried to move the St. Louis Browns to Milwaukee before the Braves, which was blocked by other AL owners led by the Yankees.  After the Braves left, the White Sox played a series of home matches in Milwaukee with an attempt to move, but that was blocked by the AL as well.

    There was at least one attempt to buy the Bucks in the mid 1980s and move them to Tampa.  But that ended when Herb Kohl stepped in and bought the team.

  2. 2 hours ago, Spiderman92 said:

    But the sleeves and socks on these did just that. The pattern is yellow-thin green-white-thin green-yellow repeat. Their current uniforms have a green stripe in between the yellow and white 

     

    you can’t just slap these jerseys on a modern Nike template it wouldn’t work most players wear short sleeves so the quad-stripes would be cut off for 90 percent of players even more so if you move the numbers back to the side. It’s meant to mimick their helmet stripe. Their current set also keeps the consistency


    You can get a lot closer to these than the Packers uniforms currently are.  Case in point...

    2003_thanksgiving_Walker.jpg

  3. 6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

     

    I’ll add to that - every tweak they’ve made to their Super Bowl II look has been a downgrade as well. 

     

    football-super-bowl-ii-green-bay-packers

     

    They got it so right at the beginning and have been chipping away at perfection ever since. 


    I can make some concessions for modern uniforms.  Specifically, shoulder numbers and modern facemasks which look better in color.  But apart from that?

    Why they didn't wipe out every change Forrest Gregg made the moment they had the chance, I'll never know.

  4. On 9/24/2017 at 2:45 PM, SFGiants58 said:

     

    mtzbIxN.png

     

    The uniforms go for a classy look that fits with both team and civic history. The scripts are a modernization of the American Association Brewers' cursive wordmarks from the 1940's. It calls to mind the old styles of beer labeling around Milwaukee (which I've seen a lot of since moving here), while also paying homage to the history of baseball in the city. I adjusted the "s" in the "Brewers" script to look more like the 1940's version. The numbers are a modified slab-serif font, to tie in with the cap logo and with the aesthetic of some of those old beer signs. The scripts have enough heft for there to be less of a clash than with the Nationals. The "5" has a Packers-style notch. Owgust appears on the raglan sleeves, along with a simplified striping pattern (blue/yellow/blue, a sort of Braisher Stripe). The patterned trim of my first edition just looked garish to me and didn't fit a team of the Brewers' age. The sock stripes are the classic Packers' pattern, as I thought it worked well for the old-timey aesthetic.

     

    nLQgdTe.png

     

    The first alternates have a little flair to them. The first is a gold top with a gold-billed cap. It uses the hat insignia as a crest, like the 1911-37 minor league Brewers. The blue jersey is a recoloring of the home uniform, with the tertiary on the sleeve (as a "civic identifier"). I put a limit on their usage, for obvious reasons.

     

    QhdVnY5.png

     

    The throwback alternates are also fun. The first is a 1993 (because of the NOB) throwback with a few adjustments. These tweaks include a sleeve patch with the 1970-77 Owgust in front of the original Wisconsin logo. The socks bear the striping pattern of the 1969 Pilots, to discourage the Mariners from throwing back to that team. It's my way of satisfying the BiG fans. The second throwback is a recreation of the 1948 American Association Brewers' home uniform, which corrects some inaccuracies with the throwbacks. The cap M now looks like the original logo, while the jerseys gain a zipper front. I added Owgust to the sleeves, to enforce an informal visual continuity with the uniforms (cursive front, Owgust as a patch, etc.).

     

    58zYlon.png

     

    This identity for the Brewers takes elements from the history of both the major league club and the history of baseball in Milwaukee (the American Association Brewers and their affiliation with the Braves). It merges these bits into a cohesive identity that balances both modernity and vintage charm. The throwbacks/faux backs also aid this goal, as they carry across a visual continuity of script and logo design with references to various points of Milwaukee's baseball history (i.e., the BiG, pinstripes, the classic cursive wordmark, and the Braves affiliation). C+C is appreciated!

     

    For the alternate take, we unlock the potential of a forgotten Brewers identity!


    No freaking way!

    This is VERY similar to an idea I've been working on.

    sHyjxb.png

     

    EDIT: Oh, didn't realize this was an old thread that someone bumped to post their own concept on. I swear that's NOT what I was trying to do here... I just thought the coincidence was too big not to mention. ?

  5. 14 hours ago, daveindc said:

     

    I don't think it makes any difference whether the stadiums sit in the city or the suburbs. They're all Atlanta's teams. The new stadium for the Braves might be in a more "convenient" spot for the average Atlanta baseball fan, but better believe those same fans are supporting the Falcons and Hawks.


    Realistically, it depends on the locale.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Brooklyn Dodgers team that would have chosen to move to the other coast rather than one borough over to Queens.

    In Atlanta's case, the ITP-OTP rivalry is real, and the Braves decision to move outside of the perimeter made a statement whether they wanted to or not.  Knowing what I do about Georgia, having lived there for a bit, it's very likely the people attending Braves games in their new stadium aren't Falcons or Hawks fans.  It's more likely that they follow the Bulldogs, if anything.

  6. 2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

    I've seen that sweatshirt before, but never looked past "BALTIMORE BROWNS".  What the F is "CHILL" for?  Who the hell designs something that dumb?


    Wasn't CHILL a fashion line for the NFL in the 90s?

  7. 9 hours ago, Raptorman415 said:

    Newark is a problem for me. Mainly because Devils is just to good of name for a New Jersey team and I wanna be original. 


    The official color of the New Jersey flag is "Jersey Blue." So I often go with Newark Blues or New Jersey Blues.

    I hear you though. I think the problem with Newark is that all the culturally significant things about it either fly under the radar or are just assumed to be from New York. A lot of people have no idea that much of the PBS programming they've watched was produced at the WNET studios in Newark.  Or that the tube from the RCA television they may have watched those shows on came from a factory right outside of Newark.

  8. 49 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

     

    There really aren’t any lost logos anymore, not in this age where every announcement is instantly disseminated across the world and preserved for posterity. 

     

    We can’t really have anything like the Brewers’ aborted 1970 uniform, that was forgotten shortly thereafter. 

     

    1970_BrewersJerseyPrototype.jpg

     

    I’d wager that most Brewers fans are still unaware of this one.  That’s a lost logo, and it really can’t happen today. 

     


    I know why they couldn't wear these in 1970, but I really wish they would have worn these in 1971.  The Tuscan lettering suits the Brewers well.

  9. On 5/3/2018 at 8:50 PM, WissX said:

    Image result for brewers ball n cap logo

    Posession of this logo should result in immitate disporval from parents. 

     

     


    That was my knee jerk reaction at first.  But the more I thought about it, the navy ties them in with the entire history of Milwaukee baseball; from the original Brewers, to the AA Brewers, to the Braves.  The Brewers are now the NL Central's only predominantly navy team.  And navy would also go better with cream, which I want the Brewers to add to their color palette.

    Don't get me wrong... I'd still be more than happy if we got wholesale button down versions of 1982 as a rebrand.  But I'm just not as against the navy recolor like I was at first.

     

  10. 2 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

    The White Sox actually did wear white scripts and numbers on their roads in 1969:

     

    0b50e4c48f4ba2451e5d9a16575969eb--chicag

     

     


    Odd, I remember these being powder blue.  Not gray.  Unless it's just the lighting on the photo.

    Either way, this was my basis for saying the Royals could pull it off.  Think the George Brett-era powder blue roads.  But with the white scripts outlined in royal blue.

  11. On 4/10/2018 at 5:28 PM, Mac the Knife said:

     

    It's what you get to do when your league is built exclusively on the desire of fans to watch individual players, rather than giving a damn about home teams or who wins vs. who loses.

     

    In a way I think it's brilliant, in that it's innovative and places clear focus on putting forth an entertaining sports property.

     

    In another way though, I think it's asinine, in that it's telling people you're putting no real emphasis on being a competitive sport, but more like pro wrestling.


    I mean, I get your point.  But the point of these league was never to be an alternative to the NBA.  It's basically an organized streetball league for guys with name recognition. And in that sense, makes perfect sense to keep only the champs to stay together.  Becoming more like the NBA would be a death trap for this league and stigmatize it as the NBA seniors circuit.

  12. 19 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

    I’ve long proposed a way for MLB to diversify (for some teams):

     

    Red Sox: Forest Green/Red (simple color swap, no red caps after Bucky Dent killed them)

     

    Cleveland: Navy/Light Blue, Maroon/Orange, etc.

     

    Twins: Forest Green/Light Blue

     

    Rangers: Brick Red/Slate Blue

     

    Braves: Black/Red

     

    Phillies: Maroon/Light Blue accents

     

    Royals: Purple/Yellow

     

    Of course, a lot of these identities are too set in stone now to really change. The rest of the majors should have followed Charlie O’s example in the 1960s. If navy/red can’t go, color distribution, accent colors, and fonts will work well enough.


    I think the color swap you proposed for the Red Sox can also work for the Twins, only with purple replacing navy.

    As for the Royals, adding powder blue to their palette would separate them enough from other teams.

    The Braves briefly used a red, yellow and black combo when they were still in Boston.  I wouldn't mind seeing them going full circle to embrace that.

    Cleveland could easily adopt the colors of one of the other teams in town.  They're not that far off from the Cavs as it is, and if the Padres won't do brown and orange, why not Cleveland?

    100% on board with the Phils here.

    The Rangers are a tough one, since there's logic to them being a RWB team.  I can't think of too many symbols of the DFW area (Texas flag, Mobil Oil, SMU)  that don't lend themselves to that scheme.  Maybe Maroon and Burnt Orange might work if A&M and UT alums don't shriek blasphemy.

  13. 7 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

    I don't see what the issue is:

    5a6a6d0003c23c850061ad3d?ops=max(750,0),

    The wordmark doesn't blend into the jersey, largely because it has outline colors. 

     

    It seems like more of "Different = (insert negative adjective here)."


    I really think you're exaggerating how well they pull that off.  If their entire brand is built around being the team with a bunch of different colors, why is most of your wordmark on your road grays devoid of color except for a few splashes at the bottom?

    These would be much more tolerable if they limited it to the M on the chest.
     

    1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

     

    It's the only aspect of their new uniform set that I really like, and I was hoping that other teams - specifically those with scripts - would give white a shot.

     

    I'd love to see some concepts of teams with white scripts either outlined or shadowed by their primary colors.  If the darker grays that the DBags tried ever caught on, white would be almost a necessity.


    I could see the White Sox pulling off something like this.  Maybe the Royals too if they went with powder blue.

    Not really sure about anyone else though.  

  14. 7 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

     

    Wow, I totally disagree with this.  You may not like the uniform (I don't particularly love it myself), but I'm not sure how it's "amateurish" at all. 

     

    In what ways does it look like the designer didn't know what a baseball uniform looks like?

     

    Also, I happen to love the white lettering on the gray.  Makes the gray... "grayer", and is a unique feature.


    That's just it though... the gray needs to be darker to pull of a white wordmark.  As it is, it's not unlike all the low level collegiate teams I've seen that just slap the school's wordmark on to a template, hence, coming off amateurish. 

  15.  

     

    6 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

    The Marlins don't have unique uniforms. Unique logo? Yes. Unique uniforms? I'd argue against that. 

     

    The problem with the Marlins is their uniforms look incredibly amateurish. Like they were designed by someine who vaguely knew what a baseball uniform is supposed to look like, but not much else. The white script on the road grays is particularly jarring.

     

    Granted, a lot of that is rooted in how they tried to do way too much with their rebrand.

  16. 2 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

    This is the default argument when it comes to the Padres going back to brown but is it really a good thing? The Diamondbacks have unique uniforms and most people dislike them. The Marlins have a unique look and most people disliked it when it came out (if not still). It doesn't seem like baseball fans in general are that receptive to uniqueness. 


    The Diamondbacks and Marlins are pretty far outside traditional baseball uniform parameters though.

    But I don't know of many people complaining about this, for example.
    3b513c9430b262cbcbd36eebd65c1766.jpg

  17. 2 hours ago, flyersfan said:

    LA chargers logo a la 2 years ago?


    Eh, I don't think anything in the social media era qualifies.

    This would be more like the proposed 70s Patriots logo that was only discovered a few years ago.

  18. 15 hours ago, whitedawg22 said:

     

    My point wasn't that people wouldn't think of Wyoming, or that it would be a problem to look like the Steelers. My problem was that a yellow helmet with a brown jersey and yellow pants would be a whole lot of yellow. For instance, I always thought this West Virginia uniform combo was a bit much:

    22_WVU_UTAH_GAME_ACTION.jpg


    Ah, gotcha.

    I grew up watching the Packers though.  The mass of yellow only ever bothered me when they played indoors.  That would only rarely ever be the case with Wyoming.

  19. 13 hours ago, NicDB said:

    Brown and orange have much better contrast than black and red.

    Plus, those are actually the Browns colors.  The Niners only ever used black as trim until it was shoehorned into their identity.

     

    6 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

     

    I think they have about the same contrast, just a shade brighter on both sides. Certainly not “much” better, if it’s better at all.


    Don't get me wrong, brown and orange is still far from ideal.  But I never seem to have a problem reading orange numbers on dark jerseys (see: Syracuse, Oregon State) as I did with the 49ers black jerseys.

  20. Brown and orange have much better contrast than black and red.

    Plus, those are actually the Browns colors.  The Niners only ever used black as trim until it was shoehorned into their identity.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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