Jump to content

Expos logo discussed on sitcom in 1988


Ferdinand Cesarano

Recommended Posts

I was recently watching an episode of Newhart that aired originally on March 21, 1988. In it, George the handyman, a lovable childlike character played by the wonderful Tom Poston, has decided to give up on the Red Sox (the show is set in Vermont) because the team has caused him too much pain. He wants to find a new team to root for by the time spring training opens, and he asks Dick (Bob Newhart) for help.


Here are the opening moments of the scene.


Newhart.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Loved the racing stripes and the pinwheel cap, but never the logo. It might well be the most overrated logo in MLB history. It's poorly designed and unclear, even when you know what it's supposed to be (and they were never actually clear on what that is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved the racing stripes and the pinwheel cap, but never the logo. It might well be the most overrated logo in MLB history. It's poorly designed and unclear, even when you know what it's supposed to be (and they were never actually clear on what that is).

I like the Expos logo. It reminds me more of a hockey logo than a baseball logo, something that would look nice blown up big and patched onto the front of a hockey jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved the racing stripes and the pinwheel cap, but never the logo. It might well be the most overrated logo in MLB history. It's poorly designed and unclear, even when you know what it's supposed to be (and they were never actually clear on what that is).

The racing stripes were a latter-day addition. To me those stripes marred a distinctive and charming uniform with an unnecessarily garish touch.

The best uniforms were these:

rusty-staub.jpg1978-topps-425-steve-rogers.jpg?w=560

And the team was clear from the start on the meaning of the logo: an "M" that encompassed a lowercase "e", all italicised to show forward motion.

The problem, however, is that they later gave a conflicting explanation. Todd Radom reports that, during the 1980s, the team was claiming that the logo also included a "b" for "baseball".

Whether one accepts the original explanation or the retcon, the logo remains distinctive and beautiful (albeit baffling to George Utley).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ive always been torn on the Expos. it is definitely an attractive logo but i never knew what it was until i was in my late teens. its so abstract i have a hard time calling it a monogram, but i think its really interesting how an abstract icon can come to speak so clearly about something, youll never confuse it for anything else. when anyone sees it, they know its the Expos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the logo almost solely from a nostalgia perspective, and the fact that it's multicolored and unique/retro looking. But the design really is not great, and if it were a new logo it would be widely hated.

It's always looked like "elb" to me, which I've heard explained as "Expos le baseball", also I've conflictingly heard it's supposed to be "eMb" (which it clearly isn't) for "Expos de Montreal Baseball" or something. I don't know. I see how it's supposed to be an M, but it just so clearly looks like "elb" which really makes zero sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the logo almost solely from a nostalgia perspective, and the fact that it's multicolored and unique/retro looking. But the design really is not great, and if it were a new logo it would be widely hated.

It's always looked like "elb" to me, which I've heard explained as "Expos le baseball", also I've conflictingly heard it's supposed to be "eMb" (which it clearly isn't) for "Expos de Montreal Baseball" or something. I don't know. I see how it's supposed to be an M, but it just so clearly looks like "elb" which really makes zero sense.

I can see being confused as to whether or not the logo is meant to include a "b". But I don't get how one could see an "l" (lowercase L) in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the logo almost solely from a nostalgia perspective, and the fact that it's multicolored and unique/retro looking. But the design really is not great, and if it were a new logo it would be widely hated.

It's always looked like "elb" to me, which I've heard explained as "Expos le baseball", also I've conflictingly heard it's supposed to be "eMb" (which it clearly isn't) for "Expos de Montreal Baseball" or something. I don't know. I see how it's supposed to be an M, but it just so clearly looks like "elb" which really makes zero sense.

I can see being confused as to whether or not the logo is meant to include a "b". But I don't get how one could see an "l" (lowercase L) in there.

What else is that white space supposed to be?

8183_montreal_expos-jersey-1989.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the logo almost solely from a nostalgia perspective, and the fact that it's multicolored and unique/retro looking. But the design really is not great, and if it were a new logo it would be widely hated.

It's always looked like "elb" to me, which I've heard explained as "Expos le baseball", also I've conflictingly heard it's supposed to be "eMb" (which it clearly isn't) for "Expos de Montreal Baseball" or something. I don't know. I see how it's supposed to be an M, but it just so clearly looks like "elb" which really makes zero sense.

I can see being confused as to whether or not the logo is meant to include a "b". But I don't get how one could see an "l" (lowercase L) in there.

What else is that white space supposed to be?

8183_montreal_expos-jersey-1989.gif

The white part is just the left side of the M (a portion of which is obscured by the superimposed "e").

I guess the reason that I never saw a lowercalse "l" in there is the lack of a loop. The "e" gives the impression of being cursive; so any "l" should be cursive as well, and should have a loop. WIthout that loop, the shape never registered in my brain as an "l" in that context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://toddradom.com/sports-logo-case-study-1-montreal-expos/

EXPOS1.jpg

The club seemingly gave a definitive explanation starting in the late 80s and early 90s—”The Expos logo is composed of three letters, the largest of which is the overall stylized “M” for Montréal. Represented in the lower left of the logo is a lower case “e” for expos and on the right hand side of the logo, in blue, is the letter “b” for baseball.” While this may stand as the final word, it seems unusual that this explanation came some two decades after the logo’s debut.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that was linked above. He's done a great job.

But it's a total logo fail. This shape doesn't read at all like an "M" out of context.

MontrealM.jpg

I get that it's a beloved logo, but it's not a very good one.

Huh? Doesn't read like an M? That's a new claim.

I'd say that the overall shape of the M is impossible to miss. The confusion over the logo is about what else the logo is meant to contain, apart from the M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved the racing stripes and the pinwheel cap, but never the logo. It might well be the most overrated logo in MLB history. It's poorly designed and unclear, even when you know what it's supposed to be (and they were never actually clear on what that is).

"Overrated" suggests that is highly rated. Is that really the case?

I enjoy the logo almost solely from a nostalgia perspective, and the fact that it's multicolored and unique/retro looking. But the design really is not great, and if it were a new logo it would be widely hated.

It's always looked like "elb" to me, which I've heard explained as "Expos le baseball", also I've conflictingly heard it's supposed to be "eMb" (which it clearly isn't) for "Expos de Montreal Baseball" or something. I don't know. I see how it's supposed to be an M, but it just so clearly looks like "elb" which really makes zero sense.

Seconded. When I was a kid back in the 70s, it always looked like elb to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am too young to have seen any of the Bob Newhart shows, but I've been told by two different people that my sense of humor and comedic delivery is very much like Newhart's. I don't know if I should take it as a compliment or not.

I agree that the Expos logo is clumsy and probably too abstract. That being said, if the Rays moved to Montreal and took the Expos name, would anybody want a different logo on their caps? I don't think I would. To me, that logo *is* the Expos, and even in recognizing it would be a different franchise from the first ones, I think that logo would be perfect for them in a modern setting.


Also, as was said, the shape of the logo doesn't look at all like an M. And that reminds me of a few people here who proposed the new Nationals making a W that was the Expos logo upside down. That would have been really bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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