TVIXX

MLB Changes 2017

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Germanshepherd said:

And those N's. The first one looks like an H. 

 

Only in that drawing. 

 

Jerseys weren't that bad.

4e1d4khxbue0y8aeog378mcd5.png

8mlTKtEk.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

The only thing wrong with their initial look was not wearing the intended sans-serif block W cap. 

 

Was that W logo ever released?

 

My perfect Nationals set would be the originals with the W cap and DC on the left sleeve.

 

sq98GDg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Survival79 said:

Was that W logo ever released?

 

Nope.  They had a couple prototype caps but it never went into wide production and the logo was never part of their official set and was never included in any style guides.

 

4883724809_b261cb0368_o.jpg

 

 

15 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Doesn't bother me - Copperplate's capital W has all its stems at the same cap height.  This version, with the central point lowered, is different enough for me.  And it's also not as wide as the Copperplate capitals, which is one of the major problems I have with that font.

 

Compare and contrast:

 

4884328132_36faa1f082_o.jpg CopperplateW.gif.6496404aec6e9e77ba51263c473f91b6.gif

 

Similar, but still very different.  And different in all the ways that would have made it a good cap logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Survival79 said:

 

Was that W logo ever released?

 

My perfect Nationals set would be the originals with the W cap and DC on the left sleeve.

 

sq98GDg.png

 

Yeah I'd take this logo in a heartbeat.  They had a BP hat with this logo in 2006 or so and it was fantastic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Nope.  They had a couple prototype caps but it never went into wide production and the logo was never part of their official set and was never included in any style guides.

 

4883724809_b261cb0368_o.jpg

 

 

 

Doesn't bother me - Copperplate's capital W has all its stems at the same cap height.  This version, with the central point lowered, is different enough for me.  And it's also not as wide as the Copperplate capitals, which is one of the major problems I have with that font.

 

Compare and contrast:

 

4884328132_36faa1f082_o.jpg CopperplateW.gif.6496404aec6e9e77ba51263c473f91b6.gif

 

Similar, but still very different.  And different in all the ways that would have made it a good cap logo.

 

Ah. But still, whenever I see serifs like that, my mind goes right to Copperplate. I like the cap logo better than the curly W (and I'd like to see the team wearing a de-beveled version of it), that's for sure, but I like the "DC" even more.

 

Each of the Washington, D.C. baseball teams having their own distinctive cap logo is an idea I can get behind. The first team had the block W, the second team had the curly W (after a brief flirtation with the block W), and the current team having the new-style W and/or DC logos. There's also the "Washington Padres" option, which looks a bit too 1970's-kitsch for my liking:

 

wash1edita.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Ah. But still, whenever I see serifs like that, my mind goes right to Copperplate. I like the cap logo better than the curly W (and I'd like to see the team wearing a de-beveled version of it), that's for sure, but I like the "DC" even more.

 

Each of the Washington, D.C. baseball teams having their own distinctive cap logo is an idea I can get behind. The first team had the block W, the second team had the curly W (after a brief flirtation with the block W), and the current team having the new-style W and/or DC logos. There's also the "Washington Padres" option, which looks a bit too 1970's-kitsch for my liking:

 

wash1edita.jpg

 

Damn, now I'm intrigued by the idea of powder blue Nats roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say that a cap letter is generic as well.  But where would you draw the line between "generic" and "iconic"?  Seems to me that each sport develops its own aesthetic traditions over time, and the "DC" cap falls within baseball's tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

the "DC" cap falls within baseball's tradition

 

zTh06NY.png

 

Billy Traber #40 of the Washington Nationals during a baseball game against the Arizona Diamondbacks on September 3, 2006 at RFK Stadium in Washington D.C. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

Cleveland uses a bright enough red that it provides adequate contrast:

 

IMG_2531.thumb.JPG.68214ff59d1f7e2dc684247ae99c365b.JPG

 

Also, there are enough red on white on navy hats in the baseball world. This is something that belongs to Cleveland.

 

Now if you want to argue that they need to add a red bill, then I'm listening.

 

Their shade of red is different from every other red in the league.  It is lighter than a lot of the darker reds used in places such as Minnesota and Atlanta, but it's darker than the truly bright reds of Toronto and Los Angeles.  It's in a middle groove, a deep scarlet.  It's not bright enough to contrast well directly with the navy.  Sure, in that picture the cap logo looks fairly bright, but in that same image you can see the muddiness of the lettering outline that doesn't even look like the same color anymore as the cap.  This is clear in many different pictures.

 

andrew-miller-of-the-cleveland-indians-wcarlos-carrasco-of-the-cleveland-indians

 

In the slightest bit of shadow, it gets worse.

 

manager-terry-francona-of-the-cleveland-

 

Note it seemingly shrinking in this shot.

 

paul-goldschmidt-of-the-arizona-diamondb

 

But all these are zoomed in, so let's actually look at what it looks like from any manner of distance...

 

francisco-lindor-of-the-cleveland-indian

 

And that right there is what the Cleveland Indians look like.  Heck, you can't even see the serif in half of those shots, the blending shaving it off as it starts to look more like the old Chicago White Sox logo.

 

In the end, the argument of it being their unique thing doesn't hold up.  It's done by other teams because it just looks good.  Every team that had pants piping had it going all the way up the leg, and the Diamondbacks decided to be unique.  Every team that had numbering shadows had the shadow underneath the number, and the Marlins decided to be unique.  Sometimes, things are done a certain way so widely because they're being done the correct way.  Design evolves over time and we learn that some things work.

 

On the subject of design marching on, the people who point to old pictures of the team or say that this look has precedent are missing the fact that there's a major difference between old and classic.  Some older things just don't look good.  While there were a number of good designs from the 70's and 80's, I don't know if there's anyone around here who wants those looks returning who want to see them on a pullover.  I can't remember anyone ever asking for pullovers to return.  No one has worn red on blue without a third, lighter color in the mix since the 40's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Nope.  They had a couple prototype caps but it never went into wide production and the logo was never part of their official set and was never included in any style guides.

 

4883724809_b261cb0368_o.jpg

 

 

4884328132_36faa1f082_o.jpg 

 

Similar, but still very different.  And different in all the ways that would have made it a good cap logo.

 

I really like the beveled W on its own.  My problem with it is that it doesn't really match the original wordmark.

 

First of all, the orientation of the letters in the original wordmark is very vertical (for lack of a better description).  The letters are all tall and skinny (especially at either end) and full of vertical lines.  Even the A's in the wordmark use vertical lines instead of diagonal ones on the sides.  Contrary to that, the beveled W uses diagonal lines for each stroke.  A better approximation of the wordmark would be a skinnier version of the W from the Hartford Whalers logo, with vertical lines for each of the upward strokes..

 

1031px-Hartford_Whalers_Logo-79-92.svg.p

 

 

Next, the beveled W has serifs at the top of each stroke.  The only letter in the original wordmark with serifs is the S.  Even in that instance, the serifs are long enough that they could arguably be considered additional vertical strokes instead of serifs.

 

Both points also apply to the interlocking DC (which I love on it own).  The letters in that logo are much more "square" in their orientation than any of the letters in the wordmark.  At least the serifs/vertical strokes on the C match the S in the wordmark.

 

If I had my druthers, the Nationals would have kept the beveled W and interlocking DC and created a new wordmark that better matched those logos.  Instead, they went in the opposite direction and chased the Walgreen's W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My vote is always for the interlocking DC logo -- looked like a modern classic of a baseball logo, it's a shoutout to the local fans who'd rarely call their city "Washington" -- but most importantly, I love the whimsy of having a non-initialism letter logo on your hat a la Minnesota's TC caps.

 

Neither the beveled W or the curly W work for me. Both are too generic for me. But they're not my team!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Digby said:

My vote is always for the interlocking DC logo -- looked like a modern classic of a baseball logo, it's a shoutout to the local fans who'd rarely call their city "Washington" -- but most importantly, I love the whimsy of having a non-initialism letter logo on your hat a la Minnesota's TC caps.

 

Neither the beveled W or the curly W work for me. Both are too generic for me. But they're not my team!

 

Between the DC and beveled W . . . I'll second this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like that beveled W, looks even more generic then the curly W. The DC imo is the best one of the bunch. I was watching the Mets-Nats game over the weekend with my girlfriend and as soon as she saw the Nats she said "Walgreens has a team???"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Minnesota Twins can use a TC cap then the Washington Nationals could use a DC cap. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

If the Minnesota Twins can use a TC cap then the Washington Nationals could use a DC cap. 

 

 

 

This is a good point. That photo I posted on the previous page which started this whole debate features an undershirt with the "DC" logo, and it all just seems to work together very well. You avoid really any doubling up or overlap. A uniform would have the interlocking DC on the hat, Washington or Nationals on the chest, and the full logo on the sleeve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.