2015-16 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[Gothamite]

Good move.

[Morgan33]

Finally something new from the team... It's only their fourth outdoor game

[GMW79]

I don't know... I still see red feathers. I think the camera blur is throwing you off.

Before posting here, I looked at a larger, clearer version of the same picture on a different site, and the feathers are definitely white.

nope

Okay, what pictures are you guys looking at?

the Instagram picture on the previous page.

Not 100% clear, but obviously not red feathers with white outlines:

[B-mer]

I don't know... I still see red feathers. I think the camera blur is throwing you off.

Before posting here, I looked at a larger, clearer version of the same picture on a different site, and the feathers are definitely white.

nope

Okay, what pictures are you guys looking at?

the Instagram picture on the previous page.

Not 100% clear, but obviously not red feathers with white outlines:

Look at the full jersey picture a page back. The logo on the shoulder is the normal logo, the one on the locker nameplate is the reversed.

Jersey is meh to me, but absolutely love the logo.

My stance on the Wings is they've only had a couple jersey designs in their history, and most of it is what they've been wearing for the past 60 years. What do you expect them to do? Throw back to the same thing every time?

They should come out with a slightly more modern look for a special event like this. Hell, have an alternate to change things up.

[hockey week]

I've always wanted to see these given another chance, or something based on it- a red version maybe? One with a logo? This is a rather-forgotten gem, imo

[charger77]

​

If anybody has the SENS 3rd jersey from this set can you please do me a solid and measure the height and width of the shoulder patch?

Thanks!

[GMW79]

I don't know... I still see red feathers. I think the camera blur is throwing you off.

Before posting here, I looked at a larger, clearer version of the same picture on a different site, and the feathers are definitely white.

nope

Okay, what pictures are you guys looking at?

the Instagram picture on the previous page.

Not 100% clear, but obviously not red feathers with white outlines:

Look at the full jersey picture a page back. The logo on the shoulder is the normal logo, the one on the locker nameplate is the reversed.

Jersey is meh to me, but absolutely love the logo.

My stance on the Wings is they've only had a couple jersey designs in their history, and most of it is what they've been wearing for the past 60 years. What do you expect them to do? Throw back to the same thing every time?

They should come out with a slightly more modern look for a special event like this. Hell, have an alternate to change things up.

Yeah. I know the logo on the previous page is the regular logo and the locker nameplate is reserved. I'm not talking about that pic. Look at the one above. The wheel is not reversed (e.g. red bottom edge); the wing looks like it is (e.g.the three triangular feathers right in the middle of the logo, among others). Maybe it's some major blurring, but turning red to white seems difficult due to bluring. Anyway, it's all moot now. For a one-off, the jersey looks ok.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

The Red Wings Stadium Series jerseys:

[KittSmith_95]

I've always wanted to see these given another chance, or something based on it- a red version maybe? One with a logo? This is a rather-forgotten gem, imo

You see, this is more like it. I love it when teams pay homage to the past, not add stuff that has zero value.

[T-ROY]

It looks like a red t-shirt on top of a white long sleeve.

[IceCap]

But that O logo wasn't made up out of thin air.

Which elevates it from "meh" to "marvelous". Context is key.

I would say he is.

I know you don't care for traditional looks, but context IS key. So many people like to say "If the Yankees/Canadiens/Celtics/Packers were an expansion team today their uniforms would be ridiculed!"

And that misses the point entirely. How people react to a certain uniform is partly influenced by the cache and history associated with the look. The Montreal Canadiens' red, white, and blue sweater didn't inspire a poem that made it all the way to the back of Canadian currency because of its design. The design is only important because it's what the Canadiens wore while establishing dynasty after dynasty.

So you can't disassociate a logo or uniform from the history made while it was being worn. It's disingenuous.

[Cosmic]

Let's get the obvious out of the way: the collar is stupid, the numbers are ludicrous but functional, the sleeves look questionable.

But... that D and the sash are strikingly beautiful.

[vman]

I've always wanted to see these given another chance, or something based on it- a red version maybe? One with a logo? This is a rather-forgotten gem, imo

You see, this is more like it. I love it when teams pay homage to the past, not add stuff that has zero value.

There's a difference between paying homage to the past and living in it. Detroit is guilty of the latter. New stuff has zero value only because it's new. That won't be the case from here on in. I definitley wouldn't mind Detroit using the new "D" logo again in the future, even if the rest of the Stadium Series jersey is entirely forgettable.

[LAWeaver]

Love the flying D logo. I know that they're a traditional team, and this is coming from someone who watches very little hockey, but that D logo in white would make a great shoulder patch. Never gave been a fan of the sash design except for soccer. Those numbers though... woof. Could they get any bigger?

7.5/10 for me, solely because of the logo, although take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Morgan33]

I would say he is.

I know you don't care for traditional looks, but context IS key. So many people like to say "If the Yankees/Canadiens/Celtics/Packers were an expansion team today their uniforms would be ridiculed!"

And that misses the point entirely. How people react to a certain uniform is partly influenced by the cache and history associated with the look. The Montreal Canadiens' red, white, and blue sweater didn't inspire a poem that made it all the way to the back of Canadian currency because of its design. The design is only important because it's what the Canadiens wore while establishing dynasty after dynasty.

So you can't disassociate a logo or uniform from the history made while it was being worn. It's disingenuous.

If he is serious, that is the perfect example of the retro fad crossing the line into insanity. An example of any design, no matter how poorly executed becoming magically good for no other reason than it being old. First of all; it's not a logo, it's a letter on horizontal stripes. It was a mediocre design then and it's a mediocre design now. Second of all, it's not the same team. The current Ottawa Senators were established in 1992 and have not won anything... Basing their identity around a team that folded over 60 years before the current iteration existed is like an admission that they will never win a cup so they might as well dress up as the old team, that won when there were just a handful of teams. It's not much different from Canucks fans claiming their team has a championship because of the millionaires.

What irks me the most about this mindset, however is that when the 92 Senators debuted with a top 5 look, they did pay homage to that team. The colours and striping pay homage to the previous team without ripping off their look wholesale. They also managed to set themselves apart from the other red and black teams by using an eye catching, rarely used colour in the metallic gold. Red, Black, White and Gold is a fantastic colour scheme and the way it was used from 92 until the Edge debacle was a sterling example of good design.

The Yankee's/Canadiens/Celtics and Packers are not the Ottawa Senators... None of those teams have a 60 plus year block of absence. Not a fair comparison at all.

As for me not liking traditional uniforms, you are putting words in my mouth. Below is what I would call, the perfect Senators uniform and there is nothing untraditional about it. It's simple, bold, looks like a hockey uniform and would pay homage to the history of the current team. Make a red version, swap the logo for the updated version and they're set. Top 5 look, easily.

[Gothamite]

If he is serious, that is the perfect example of the retro fad crossing the line into insanity. An example of any design, no matter how poorly executed becoming magically good for no other reason than it being old.

Well, at least you haven't lost your sense of perspective.

That's not what I said, speaking of putting words in someone else's mouth. I said this one, calling back to an earlier era in the city's history, is charming in a way that wouldn't have been possible if the logo was created from scratch today.

It helps that they managed to turn the plain letter into a decent secondary logo:

Context is key. Each situation has to be considered on its own.

[IceCap]

As for me not liking traditional uniforms, you are putting words in my mouth.

I don't feel I am. Not when someone says they prefer an older look and you accuse them of only liking it because of a fad. When you're saying traditional looks are only getting used because "it's just a fad"? I don't think I'm wrong in saying you're hostile to older identities.

As for that Sens look you posted? It's better then anything they've worn since, but I'm still not a fan of the Roman theme. It's so tenuous. Roman had a Senate, so how about a centurion? You might as well use a logo depicting Canadian special forces because Canada has a Senate. It would make as much sense.

The =O= has a sense of history to it that elevates it. Does it depict a Senator? No, but it works much like the Bruins logo works despite not depicting a bear. And it at least represent the locale with the letter O. The Roman logos don't represent either part of the name.

Second of all, it's not the same team.

If the Sens' single season stint as the St. Louis Eagles had panned out and they were still around? Yeah, I'd have a problem with the new Senators using the old team's logos. The original Sens are gone though. No team has a real claim on their legacy. So I don't see the harm in the new team calling back to it. They're not stealing another active franchise's history.

[hockey week]

Hey, Montreal operates on just two letters. Anaheim, Boston, Calgary, Dallas, and LA work primarily on a letter. That new Detroit logo is just a letter. Some more basic than others.

I think most people aren't seeing the forest through the trees. The key to the original Senators brand was not the O, it was the barber pole. Most of their time, they went without the logo, people just knew those stripes. The O logo only showed up at the end.

THE STRIPES ARE WHAT COUNTS, the rest is extra fluff. The stripes, and hockey in the city of Ottawa, are tied together. I think it'd be crazy-awesome if Ottawa told the league to piss off and wore a barber pole every game that they could, having a clash jersey just in case other red/black teams complain.

And there is SOME kind of connection with the original team, maybe not in something we recognize, but the franchise certainly acknowledges that team as heritage

Est. 1894

[SFGiants58]

As for that Sens look you posted? It's better then anything they've worn since, but I'm still not a fan of the Roman theme. It's so tenuous. Roman had a Senate, so how about a centurion? You might as well use a logo depicting Canadian special forces because Canada has a Senate. It would make as much sense.

The =O= has a sense of history to it that elevates it. Does it depict a Senator? No, but it works much like the Bruins logo works despite not depicting a bear. And it at least represent the locale with the letter O. The Roman logos don't represent either part of the name.

Senators in Rome (and the Senatorial class of Rome as a whole) would have participated in Rome's military. While not all Senators served in the military during their senatorial terms, some did. If I recall correctly, about 80 Senators/magistrates died during the Battle of Cannae.

While I do agree that it is a little tenuous, I do think it makes a little more sense than the example you provided. Still, barberpole is the way to go if the Roman theme can't be done right.

[IceCap]

As for that Sens look you posted? It's better then anything they've worn since, but I'm still not a fan of the Roman theme. It's so tenuous. Roman had a Senate, so how about a centurion? You might as well use a logo depicting Canadian special forces because Canada has a Senate. It would make as much sense.

The =O= has a sense of history to it that elevates it. Does it depict a Senator? No, but it works much like the Bruins logo works despite not depicting a bear. And it at least represent the locale with the letter O. The Roman logos don't represent either part of the name.

Senators in Rome (and the Senatorial class of Rome as a whole) would have participated in Rome's military. While not all Senators served in the military during their senatorial terms, some did. If I recall correctly, about 80 Senators/magistrates died during the Battle of Cannae.

There was overlap, but one was not a qualification for the other. You had Senators who weren't Centurions and vise versa.

It's still tenuous because the rationale seems to be "Rome had a Senate, what Roman imagery can we use?" They even named their mascot after Spartacus, even though he led a rebellion against the Roman Senate and fought against Centurions. The team doesn't care. They're just grabbing whatever Roman imagery they can because "hey, Rome had a Senate."]

So they might as well just ditch the Roman theme all together. Go with the =O= and some form of modernized barberpole.