Toronto Maple Leafs to get new logo for 2016-2017 season

[CreamSoda]

3 hours ago, FGM13 said:

I think the real problem here is that CreamSoda thinks he's right. No one is right! Design is subjective! Personally, I think the new logo is gorgeous, best they've ever had, and I never had any real problems with the Ballard Leaf. But that doesn't mean I'm right, and that doesn't mean anyone who disagrees is wrong.

 

 

I apologize if I am coming off this way.   

 

 

[Gothamite]

7 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

I honestly didn't do this to troll but my simple take on the logo generated so much heat from Leafs fan I had to defend my reasons.  All I ever got in return was, "Nope Its perfect" and "All of Toronto Loves it."  Neither really adds to the DESIGN discussion of the logo.  Or my favorite, "The Ballard leaf was too stylized, this new leaf is perfect" followed by "Of course it doesn't look like a real leaf, it's stylized."

 

You do realize that your last sentence invalidates the one right before it, don't you? 

 

You can't say nobody discussed the design and then list two separate defenses of the design. 

[CreamSoda]

mod edit

[steve61]

23 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

Disagree.  

 

Those all look better than what they just released.  

 

I think people that like the new logo are blinded by nostalgia.  It's really not a good rendering at all. 

 

I think as far as a true representation of a maple leaf shape, they do look better.  However, they also demonstrate (as others have pointed out) that when you add the word mark it ruins the look.   I actually agree with you on the shape of the latest release not really looking like a maple leaf.  In my opinion, the Ballard leaf was the only logo in the team's history to really represent the proportions of the sugar maple that we're all familiar with.  It needed to be thicker around the middle than the standard leaf we see on the flag and in the thousands of logos we see in this country in order for the word mark to fit properly and maintain proportion. 

 

The problem is the work mark itself in my opinion.  Not that I don't like or want it there.  I do.  I just think that there's a trade off which makes it very difficult to have the word mark AND a properly shaped realistic maple leaf (un-Ballard) without something looking off.  The compromise is the entire collection of leaf logos the team used prior to Ballard and once again last week.  It still looks maple leaf-ish, mostly because it looks like the team's past logos which we all accept as maple leafs, while allowing the team name to not be swallowed up like the examples above.  

 

[CreamSoda]

On 2015-12-14 at 6:46 PM, Gothamite said:

Wow. Looking at them in context, I find that I really prefer the 1967-70 logo.

I've already expressed a preference for the typeface, but the shape of the leaf seems better balanced to me.

 

 

Yet somehow the new logo, which is the old logo, is no longer better than the 1967 logo?

 

You just got swept up with the masses and totally flipped on your opinion. 

[Cosmic]

Hold on, guys.  If you zoom in to 500%, you can clearly see that one tip of the stem appears to be cut off slightly.  THIS IS A POOR RENDER AND COMPLETELY INVALIDATES THE ENTIRE PROCESS.  IF THE LEAFS WIN A CUP WITH THIS LOGO, THERE WILL BE AN ASTERISK NEXT TO THEIR NAME.

 

[CreamSoda]

8 minutes ago, steve61 said:

 

I think as far as a true representation of a maple leaf shape, they do look better.  However, they do demonstrate (as others have pointed out) that when you add the word mark it ruins the look.   I actually agree with you on the shape of the latest release not really looking like a maple leaf.  In my opinion, the Ballard leaf was the only logo in the team's history to really represent the proportions of the sugar maple that we're all familiar with.  It needed to be thicker around the middle than the standard leaf we see on the flag and in the thousands of logos we see in this country in order for the word mark to fit properly and maintain proportion. 

 

The problem is the work mark itself in my opinion.  Not that I don't like or want it there.  I do.  I just think that there's a trade off which makes it very difficult to have the word mark AND a properly shaped maple leaf without something looking off.  The compromise is the entire collection of leaf logos the team used prior to Ballard and once again last week.  It still looks maple leaf-ish, mostly because it looks like the team's past logos which we all accept as maple leafs, while allowing the team name to not be swallowed up like the examples above.  

 

 

 

I can see what you mean there.  

 

I do like the Ballard leaf the best because it's the best rendering of the traditional sugar maple leaf we are all familiar with.  And the variant of maple leaves that is the iconic shape.  

 

There are tons of species of Penguins but Pittsburgh uses the most iconic one.  It's the same principle here.  

 

The wordmark on the Ballard leaf looks better positioned to me as well.  I don't really care for the arched Toronto text. 

[CreamSoda]

5 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Hold on, guys.  If you zoom in to 500%, you can clearly see that one tip of the stem appears to be cut off slightly.  THIS IS A POOR RENDER AND COMPLETELY INVALIDATES THE ENTIRE PROCESS.  IF THE LEAFS WIN A CUP WITH THIS LOGO, THERE WILL BE AN ASTERISK NEXT TO THEIR NAME.

 

 

 

Again as I was saying people can't actually take a critique and just go over the top with super sarcastic posts.  Don't worry you'll get five likes from Ice Cap, Gothamite and the others for your brave foray into satire while defending the holy grail of sports teams. 

 

Defense mechanisms?  I'm not sure but it's odd how you guys can't take any critique of this logo.  

 

100% honest question.  Is there seriously nothing you would change about the newest Maple Leaf logo?

[steve61]

2 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

 

I can see what you mean there.  

 

I do like the Ballard leaf the best because it's the best rendering of the traditional sugar maple leaf we are all familiar with.  And the variant of maple leaves that is the iconic shape.  

 

There are tons of species of Penguins but Pittsburgh uses the most iconic one.  It's the same principle here.  

 

The wordmark on the Ballard leaf looks better positioned to me as well.  I don't really care for the arched Toronto text. 

I'm actually torn.  I agree that the Ballard leaf best represents the shape, and I love the shape of the standard stylized Canadian maple leaf in most logos.  However I prefer that the team logo of the Maple Leafs be more vintage in appearance.  I've flipped back and forth on the new logo since it came out.  I think it will look great on a jersey.  The Ballard leaf looks nice on paper but sometimes felt a bit too boring on ice when you compared it to the Wings or Hawks.  I'm willing to trade old school detail for a bit of realism especially when it actually pays tribute to the historic logos previously used by the team.  The 1963 throwbacks always popped better in game play than the regular uniforms in my opinion.  I'm optimistic these will accomplish the same.  

[Cosmic]

13 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

 

Again as I was saying people can't actually take a critique and just go over the top with super sarcastic posts.  Don't worry you'll get five likes from Ice Cap, Gothamite and the others for your brave foray into satire while defending the holy grail of sports teams. 

 

Defense mechanisms?  I'm not sure but it's odd how you guys can't take any critique of this logo.  

 

100% honest question.  Is there seriously nothing you would change about the newest Maple Leaf logo?

There's nothing I would do that I think would make it objectively better.  There might be some version somewhere that I might like slightly better, but I don't think it's possible to significantly improve on the version we got.

[IceCap]

19 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

Again as I was saying people can't actually take a critique and just go over the top with super sarcastic posts.  Don't worry you'll get five likes from Ice Cap, Gothamite and the others for your brave foray into satire while defending the holy grail of sports teams. 

 

Defense mechanisms?  I'm not sure but it's odd how you guys can't take any critique of this logo.  

Ok. In case I didn't make myself clear last night...

 

The problem isn't that we "can't take any critique of this logo."

The problem isn't that you disagree with us.

 

The problems here are twofold. The first problem is that, whether you mean to or not, you're presenting your subjective opinion as fact. Saying things like "the new logo just isn't well made, and that's a fact" isn't helpful for conducive, intelligent conversation. You're free to disagree. You're free to say you think we're all wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. When you start from the position that you're opinion is fact though? You leave no room for actual discussion. And you insult people who disagree with you.

The second problem is that you've failed to make the distinction between poster and opinion. You're free to find an opinion lacking or faulty. You're free to attack it because you think that. What's not ok is to attack people who hold opinions you disagree with. You've crossed that line more than once. And not just in this thread.

 

Quote

100% honest question.  Is there seriously nothing you would change about the newest Maple Leaf logo?

No. Cosmic basically took my answer. I'm entirely fine with what we got.

[CreamSoda]

5 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Ok. In case I didn't make myself clear last night...

 

The problem isn't that we "can't take any critique of this logo."

The problem isn't that you disagree with us.

 

The problems here are twofold. The first problem is that, whether you mean to or not, you're presenting your subjective opinion as fact. Saying things like "the new logo just isn't well made, and that's a fact" isn't helpful for conducive, intelligent conversation. You're free to disagree. You're free to say you think we're all wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. When you start from the position that you're opinion is fact though? You leave no room for actual discussion. And you insult people who disagree with you.

The second problem is that you've failed to make the distinction between poster and opinion. You're free to find an opinion lacking or faulty. You're free to attack it because you think that. What's not ok is to attack people who hold opinions you disagree with. You've crossed that line more than once. And not just in this thread.

 

No. Cosmic basically took my answer. I'm entirely fine with what we got.

 

 

Uhh please show me where I listed my opinion as fact today.   I would love to see it.  

 

 

Wow, not a single thing you would change on the new logo.  It's 100% perfect and should never be changed?  Ever?

[IceCap]

22 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

Uhh please show me where I listed my opinion as fact today.   I would love to see it.  

Not from today, but it's been a problem with you this conversation.

 

On 2016-02-03 at 1:28 PM, CreamSoda said:

The new leaf looks like a pot leaf.  Not sure why you guys are getting offended by that but its true.

 

On 2016-02-03 at 1:39 PM, CreamSoda said:

But to say it looks more like a traditional maple leaf than the Ballard leaf is just wrong.  

 

17 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

What I just posted is far better than what they released. 

 

15 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

Don't worry.  I know I won't change anybodies minds here, you guys are all fully entrenched and won't admit when you are wrong.  The facts are that the leaf they just realized isn't good.

 

14 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

It has universal acclaim because its like the old logo.  Not because it is good.  

 

The render is actually really, really poor when you look at it.  

 

16 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

I removed that version, the outlined version is far better.

 

You can champion your opinion without presenting it as the only truth. This is about design. Ultimately? Neither your opinion or mine (or the opinions of anyone else) is "right."

 

22 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

Wow, not a single thing you would change on the new logo.  It's 100% perfect and should never be changed?  Ever?

Like what Cosmic said. Maybe there's an improvement out there I'll like better, but I haven't seen it.

[CreamSoda]

15 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Not from today, but it's been a problem with you this conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can champion your opinion without presenting it as the only truth. This is about design. Ultimately? Neither your opinion or mine (or the opinions of anyone else) is "right."

 

Like what Cosmic said. Maybe there's an improvement out there I'll like better, but I haven't seen it.

 

Dude you can't bring up the past to attack me when I changed my posting style to reflect those improvements.  That is absurd.  

 

 

 

[IceCap]

Just now, CreamSoda said:

Dude you can't bring up the past to attack me when I changed my posting style to reflect those improvements.  That is absurd.  

"The past." The oldest post is a few days old. Most are less than twenty-four hours old. 

I was happy to see that you apologized for coming off like that last night, but then I log in this morning and find you insulting other members personally over a difference of aesthetic opinion.

The problems you seem to having in this thread need to be viewed in proper context. Which includes posts that are less than a day old.

[CreamSoda]

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

"The past." The oldest post is a few days old. Most are less than twenty-four hours old. 

I was happy to see that you apologized for coming off like that last night, but then I log in this morning and find you insulting other members personally over a difference of aesthetic opinion.

The problems you seem to having in this thread need to be viewed in proper context. Which includes posts that are less than a day old.

 

I have a right to defend my posts when people nitpick them without actually reading the whole post.   

 

[KittSmith_95]

Hey Cream:

I'm 20 years old. I grew up with the Ballard Leaf. It's all I've known my whole life.... yet I like this Leaf more. It has a similar look to a Silver Maple, and I find the logo is a nice tie to history.

 

You can't say I have nostalgia glasses on, so what's the excuse you have for me and I bet other young guys liking the logo? That we're sheep?

[IceCap]

Yeah, I'm 28. The Ballard leaf has been the Leafs' primary my entire life. I've seen plenty of memorable Leafs teams wearing that logo. A lot of good memories.

I still don't like the Ballard logo though. The new logo is based on a primary that was dropped two decades before I was born. So I'm not seeing how nostalgia plays a roll. It's not like I have fond memories watching Johnny Bower play or anything.

[CreamSoda]

1 minute ago, KittSmith_95 said:

Hey Cream:

I'm 20 years old. I grew up with the Ballard Leaf. It's all I've known my whole life.... yet I like this Leaf more. It has a similar look to a Silver Maple, and I find the logo is a nice to history.

 

You can't say I have nostalgia glasses on, so what's the excuse you have for me and I bet other young guys liking the logo? That we're sheep?

 

You don't have to be born or lived during a time period to be nostalgic for it.  You even pointed this out by saying "nice to history." 

 

I dont think you have to have an exuse for liking it.  That's cool, you can like whatever you want to like.  

 

I personally don't think it's s good logo.  I would be curious to see other versions they came up with and to see how many posters still like the one they released the most.   

[KittSmith_95]

2 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

You don't have to be born or lived during a time period to be nostalgic for it.  You even pointed this out by saying "nice to history." 

 

I dont think you have to have an exuse for liking it.  That's cool, you can like whatever you want to like.  

 

I personally don't think it's s good logo.  I would be curious to see other versions they came up with and to see how many posters still like the one they released the most.   

 

There's a fair post that makes sense.

 

You need to come down though, bud. Not everyone's gonna agree with you, & sometimes you have to accept that you're on the wrong side of a debate.