CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, KittSmith_95 said: 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. Hopefully we do see some other variations of the logo, that would be cool. Umm, there is no wrong side of a debate about a design... This isn't a math question with a right and wrong answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 8 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. This is correct. Just look at how many young people wear throwback logos from periods they never saw. Hell, when I was young, I used to read baseball history books and fell in love with the 50s Phillies script, and literally screamed when I read in the paper one day in '91 that they were switching to a similar script. I totally understand that context is important when it comes to sports logos. History obviously provides some of that context, and how much value one places on that piece of it is totally up to the individual. In this case it has little value to me, so I'm evaluating the logo based on other factors, and in each case, it falls short of the Ballard leaf, which I feel is more iconic, more like an actual leaf, better rendered, and more timeless. Now that I've paid more attention to fonts, I do think that could be improved but I feel that without the benefit of context, if both logos were released today, the Ballard leaf would win hands down. Of course, context does matter, so if you guys love the new leaf then that's cool - they did their job. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said: This is correct. Just look at how many young people wear throwback logos from periods they never saw. Hell, when I was young, I used to read baseball history books and fell in love with the 50s Phillies script, and literally screamed when I read in the paper one day in '91 that they were switching to a similar script. I totally understand that context is important when it comes to sports logos. History obviously provides some of that context, and how much value one places on that piece of it is totally up to the individual. In this case it has little value to me, so I'm evaluating the logo based on other factors, and in each case, it falls short of the Ballard leaf, which I feel is more iconic, more like an actual leaf, better rendered, and more timeless. Now that I've paid more attention to fonts, I do think that could be improved but I feel that without the benefit of context, if both logos were released today, the Ballard leaf would win hands down. Of course, context does matter, so if you guys love the new leaf then that's cool - they did their job. Absolutely agree. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildwing64 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I agree that the Ballard Leaf is iconic, but the retro aesthetic of the new logo suits them very well. The nostalgic image of old time hockey works for the Leafs, whether there's any actual nostalgia for the time period they're drawing from or not. If the uniforms look anything like this take by Roger Clemente, they can shut up and take my money and I'm not even a Leafs fan. PotD: 24/08/2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypower Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I'm torn here. It's not a bad logo by any means (or MEANS if you will ) and it's a great update, but there's just something about it I don't entirely like and I think it's the shape of the leaf. I find it looks dated and out of place in this era, compared to the "cleaner", I guess, Ballard leaf. I think adding an outline, essentially updating the 63-67 logo instead of the 38-63 logo, would be an improvement. All that aside, this is probably my favorite Leafs look of all time and gets the Ken Wregget requirement for today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 11 minutes ago, monkeypower said: I'm torn here. It's not a bad logo by any means (or MEANS if you will ) and it's a great update, but there's just something about it I don't entirely like and I think it's the shape of the leaf. I find it looks dated and out of place in this era, compared to the "cleaner", I guess, Ballard leaf. I think adding an outline, essentially updating the 63-67 logo instead of the 38-63 logo, would be an improvement. All that aside, this is probably my favorite Leafs look of all time and gets the Ken Wregget requirement for today. Wow seeing the new logo side by side with the Lightning logo almost makes it look like the Leafs ripped off the Bolts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orgo Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, CreamSoda said: Wow seeing the new logo side by side with the Lightning logo almost makes it look like the Leafs ripped off the Bolts. Hahaha no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, Orgo said: Hahaha no. Of course a leaf fan wouldn't see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orgo Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, CreamSoda said: Of course a leaf fan wouldn't see that. I can give monkeypower props. The shape of the leaf is odd and very retro compared to the more "modernized" logos. However, that's OK. Your claim is out to lunch though, especially given that the Lightning ripped off 2 O6 teams to go for their "clean" old-timey look and even then, the TBL logo is modern as heck. The one thing these two teams share is that their logos are both blue and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lopernv Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 The Leafs ripped off the Bolts? I'm sure you are just trolling now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Just now, lopernv said: The Leafs ripped off the Bolts? I'm sure you are just trolling now. Where did I say this?! Again people need to read what I write instead of making snap judgments. It's not that hard people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, Orgo said: I can give monkeypower props. The shape of the leaf is odd and very retro compared to the more "modernized" logos. Your claim is out to lunch though, especially given that (1) the Lightning ripped off 2 O6 teams to go for their "clean" look and (2) the TBL logo is modern as heck. Calm down... i didnt say say they ripped off the bolts. I said it almost looks like they could have. They are both one color logos with super modern design styles. The shape of the leafs logo is vintage but the execution is super modern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lopernv Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 26 minutes ago, CreamSoda said: Wow seeing the new logo side by side with the Lightning logo almost makes it look like the Leafs ripped off the Bolts. If you are going to get out of this by saying the word "almost" invalidates your opinions, that is a very poor defense. There was no reason to say this if you do not believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, lopernv said: If you are going to get out of this by saying the word "almost" invalidates your opinions, that is a very poor defense. Yikes, are you saying words matter. That's news to me!! I can absolutely validate my response because the words "almost" "makes" and "looks like" are saying I am making a comparison knowing it's not true. Again, Leaf apologists overreact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lopernv Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Was this different before? When the Leafs were using a single colour logo... with modern execution... with vintage inspiration? Just so we know: should we read your posts using the definition of phrases that you yourself created? Usually when someone says something looks like something else, it's not because they look opposite. It would be good to know for the future of this beautiful thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 1 minute ago, lopernv said: Was this different before? When the Leafs were using a single colour logo... with modern execution... with a vintage inspiration? Just so we know: should we read your posts using the definition of phrases that you yourself created? Usually when someone says something looks like something else, it's not because they look opposite. It would be good to know for the future of this beautiful thread. "ALMOST MAKES IT LOOK LIKE" means something different than "They did" Its really not that hard of a concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lopernv Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 You still haven't told me how this is different than the situation with the current Leafs logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Just now, lopernv said: You still haven't told me how this is different than the situation with the current Leafs logo. You mean the one that preceded the Lightning logo by three decades. It's kind of hard to rip off something when it was created first. Basic timeline principles... Again, not a hard concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lopernv Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 So the Leafs use the same design principles from their first logo, and suddenly (almost, looks like, maybe, could be, in this or another dimension, etc) rip off another NHL team with their second logo? This style of Leafs logo also predates the current Lightning logo, so really this entire argument is totally contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, lopernv said: So the Leafs use the same design principles from their first logo, and suddenly (almost, looks like, maybe, could be, in this or another dimension, etc) rip off another NHL team with their second logo? You just don't get basic timelines do you? The Lightning logo is now OLDER than the new Leafs logo... Nowhere did I say the Lightning ripped off the Leafs or that the Leafs ripped off the Lightning. Sentences can have qualifying introductory phrases which change the meaning. Please read with comprehension and stop being so concrete in your thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.