Bayne

Members
  • Content Count

    2,511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

845 Starter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia
  • Favourite Logos
    Red Wings
    St.Louis Blues
  • Favourite Teams
    Canucks / Southampton FC

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

29,974 profile views
  1. That would be my suspicion - that they're waiting until next season to break them out full time. There's something about this awkward period that we're figuring out as we go that makes me think it wouldn't be a great time to unveil them as their new sets going forward. I'd hold off on it if I were in charge. But let's also keep in mind that this is the play-in round...it's not even playoffs yet, technically.
  2. I don't like the pattern. In general, I just think patterns usually cheapen the integrity of a kit.
  3. Yeah that's why it's a teaser - because it doesn't give it all away.
  4. Nice to see it without the bevelling. It's not as bad as I thought it would look but I definitely still prefer it how it is. The bevelling gives the logo some nice depth like @NoE38_Concepts said. It just looks a bit too flat without the shading, like the tentacle could be a just sitting onto of the S as opposed to coming up through the S. The eye obviously benefits from this as well.
  5. This reminds me of why I like the Canucks white 40th anniversary jersey so much. So clean and cirsp. No unnecessary silver outlines and a nice basic striping pattern.
  6. Without the added accoutrements the logo would have been more negatively received, guaranteed. The reception would have been more along the lines of "that's it?" than majority approval. People love to find the hidden elements; it's almost hard-wired into most of us by now. As sports logo design afficionados I'm sure some of us would have seen the merits of keeping it as a simple and traditional blackletter style letter S, but even then I'm sure there would have been many forum members on here who would have disliked it for not being creative enough. Personally I think it absolutely needed to have something extra, especially given that they ultimately went with Kraken. We're in the arena of myth, stories, entertainment where marketing rules all - I can't imagine how they could have justified not playing with the idea of having a creature in their logo. Credit to them that they managed to do it in a very subtle way.
  7. I mean, the tentacle and the eye are in the negative space, so inverting it like that doesn't make sense. The tentacle does become the top middle stroke because it's darker, so in a way that actually doesn't matter, but they eye is kind of problematic, not to mention the fact that yes the whole thing loses a lot of weight and becomes very flimsy on a white background. I wish it could be inverted because I don't love how it looks on a white background on the white jersey concepts, but simply re-colouring it doesn't work.
  8. Yeah very nice. My only concern is that you won't notice the contrast in black and dark blue on TV much at all, but in vaccuum and up close, this is great.
  9. 100%. The arched 'Seattle' reminds me of something you would see in a marina. It seems like a no-brainer. Overall I'm not that impressed with the wordmark but it's fine. I don't get too worked up over the wordmark unless it's terrible, which this isn't. I have to say though, I know the bevelling was given some silly rationale about how it mimics the carved look you get in boat lettering or something (I'm not sure, my brain glazed over a bit during that bit), but I think it's absolutely integral to the look of the main logo. If that S didn't have the bevel shading it wouldn't work for me nearly as well. The bevelling gives the tentacle shapes of the S motif that added effect and feel of a sea creature. I really do appreciate its effectiveness in this case.
  10. So which one is it? The dark sleeve or the one with the white at the top?
  11. I was using the minimalist example as a way to emphasise a point. I don't think the original is trying to be more minimalist than the updated version obviously, but it does contain one less element of detail...and it has never personally stood out to me as being a problem. In fact I never really took notice of it. Sure it's an exaggerated plume, but so what. It's expressive - it's not an accurate 1/1 representation. It's a logo.
  12. I don't understand the argument for why a logo needs to include real life specific elements into the design. A logo is an artistic depiction of an abstract idea, why on earth does it matter if the plume is not connected to the helmet? it's pretty funny how this seems to be such an important issue to so many people in regards to the Senator logo. Above all else when it comes to design, is the issue of balance, contrast and detail. You are allowed to take artistic liberties for the sake of the overal aesthetic of a logo. Have you ever heard of minimalism? What happens when you see minimalist logo design that omits much more than, in this instance, just the peice of helmet that connects it to the plume? I don't understand the problem, honestly. The updated logo feels too heavy and lacks the finnese and elegant flourishes that give the old logo a classic quality.
  13. I could be wrong but I would assume the original version without the eye didn't have the crook in the top part of the S shape: I actually think the S with the crook (on the right) looks better. It suggests an eye there, without actually having one - it's a scowling eyebrow in the S. I don't know if I'm getting that from having seen the logo with the eye or not, but it's definitely working for me. I think.The S logo on the left does feel a bit too symmetrical and one-note for me. I think I'm glad they ultimately added a little something extra to go with the tentacle. Overall I like that they have a bit of red as an accent colour, so having a red eye isn't a bad thing. But yeah, I get what everyone is saying in regards to that choice.
  14. Jeff Marek still harping on about coloured ice. God he has some bad ideas.