Tigers6884 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 These monstrosities worn by my Tigers in 1927: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Lankford Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 9 minutes ago, Tigers6884 said: These monstrosities worn by my Tigers in 1927: Baseball needs more non-letter logos on jerseys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jujubeans Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 41 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: The Twins' M logo is not generic. The M logo that is generic is the Milwaukee Braves' cap logo, also used by the Brewers in their first several years. The Minnesota M is from the same custom font from which the "Twins" wordmark comes. That's why it goes so beautifully with that uniform. Fine. It's boring then. Dull. Uninspiring. Flat. Insipid. Bland. Forgettable. Pick your favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC985 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 It's a vest but the undershirt is the same color. What's the point of having a vest? Maybe with the new shade of purple this can get a redo, but since it's a key part of the franchise's history (2007 pennant) I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalChef Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 57 minutes ago, Tigers6884 said: These monstrosities worn by my Tigers in 1927: They really are not that bad, it's just that the logo looks like a rotting corpse more than a tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 12 minutes ago, Brandon9485 said: It's a vest but the undershirt is the same color. What's the point of having a vest? Maybe with the new shade of purple this can get a redo, but since it's a key part of the franchise's history (2007 pennant) I doubt it. I'm not sure that jersey will be kept around for much longer. It's never really been a fan favorite...and since it's a vest, it's tough to sell. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 On Sat Mar 18 2017 at 1:20 PM, Ray Lankford said: I'd like the Rays' fauxback better if it wasn't just a ripoff of the Padres' actual throwbacks. I felt like that was more a case of imitation being flattery. Like they clearly weren't planning on wearing that jersey very often so to make it clear that they were trying to create a late 70s look might as well use what is arguably the most quintessential late 70s jersey as a template. At least that's the way I took it. Like it was meant to be an obvious ripoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 On Sat Mar 18 2017 at 2:27 PM, Rebuy said: I agree that adding more teal to that set would have been good. I don't see how anyone could view the current set as an upgrade but the difference of opinions are what make it fun. As a Marlins fan I think I can comfortably say the current set is an upgrade over the 2006-2011 black/white/silver set while still maintaining that the more teal heavy sets from 93-95 and then 96-06 are the best of the bunch. With that said I do like the current set so that of course sways my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 3 hours ago, Brandon9485 said: It's a vest but the undershirt is the same color. What's the point of having a vest? Maybe with the new shade of purple this can get a redo, but since it's a key part of the franchise's history (2007 pennant) I doubt it. The undershirt was meant to be purple when the jersey was designed. Doesn't correct the stupidity of why they wear it with black now but that is the very reason that this happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Lankford Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 It doesn't look much better with purple undershirts: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 I know I've just posted a bunch right now but two quick bits as I finished reading through this thread... Has there ever been confirmation to the rumor that the Twins floating underline on the Metrodome jerseys was specifically meant to just underline the letters WIN? And about the Marlins, at Fan Fest a month ago I met Giancarlo Stanton while he was signing his rookie card for someone and his rookie card of course was in the 2010 Marlins uniform and I asked him "So be honest, which uniform do you like better the one you're wearing or the one you're signing?" He told me he liked the 2010 one better and smiled and just said "because it was a classic look." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said: It doesn't look much better with purple undershirts: Nope, the black definitely looks better if you can get past the silliness of it being a black vest over a black shirt but at least that pic shows what they were going for. And while it didn't work I kinda compare it to the A's going with the green and gold looks in the 60s and 70s as just trying something out of the box and hoping it works. I prefer that kind of thinking outside the box with colors as opposed to thinking outside the box and pulling up animal skin gradients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyraven8 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 3 hours ago, ImmortalChef said: They really are not that bad, it's just that the logo looks like a rotting corpse more than a tiger The Home 1927 uniform has a better looking tiger head - also doesn't have the Little Orphan Annie looking eyes. "Just when I thought you'd said the stupidest thing, you keep on talking" - Hank Hill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC985 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 58 minutes ago, greyraven8 said: The Home 1927 uniform has a better looking tiger head - also doesn't have the Little Orphan Annie looking eyes. That tiger doesn't look bad. With the orange English D hats, it could be a cool home throwback uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rj0498 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 5 hours ago, Brandon9485 said: It's a vest but the undershirt is the same color. What's the point of having a vest? Maybe with the new shade of purple this can get a redo, but since it's a key part of the franchise's history (2007 pennant) I doubt it. Ugh. It is the only blemish on the rox, otherwise awesome uniform set. And speaking of ugly vests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WavePunter Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 On 3/17/2017 at 9:01 AM, VikWings said: Never was a fan of the Brewers set either. I think it's because of the wordmark. I'm probably one of the few people here who actually likes the Brewers' current identity, and I LOVE both the "Wheat-M" from the cap and the script "B" from the jerseys, but I'll admit that the "rewers" following the "B" is pretty bad.. It's not quite tall enough vertically for the amount of horizontal stretch it has, and always looks more skewed on the front half ("re" side) than the back half ("wers).. A slight number font and NOB font update/upgrade would do wonders for this set, as would a minor tweak to the lowercase part of the chest script.. But otherwise, I actually really like this identity as a whole. __________________________________ Btw, I totally agree about all of the other points mentioned, especially the Marlins and Padres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcaxberg Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 On 3/18/2017 at 10:48 PM, oldschoolvikings said: The "TC" logo is one of my favorite cap logos of all time. The fact that it stands for "Twin Cities" is what makes it so awesome. I get that the rule of thumb is that cap insignias should have an initial or initials that represent the team's city. But rules all have built in exceptions. Oakland's "A" and Minnesota's "TC" are two exceptions, and they should NEVER change. I agree that TC is one of the best logos out there. I love it and hope it never changes (again). I actually didn't mind the M caps in 87 because it was part of a very strong uniform, home and away. I always thought that the M was a decent enough logo -- matched the new wordmark in font/underscore, etc. It's just that the TC is so iconic, cool, and traditional. Although I like the previous away uni better, the current one is starting to grow on me. Mostly for, as a previous poster observed, the contrasting script/number. It works. So it really doesn't bother me as much as it used to. On the other hand, the current homes...ugh. Adding some piping or pinstripes would help. I just think that the Twins wordmark looks better as a red w/ blue outline. I'd like for them to move toward what they had pre-2015. I always dug the early days of that uniform (til mid-90s) where homes would have no names while the aways did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WavePunter Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 On 3/19/2017 at 0:25 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said: Bad comparison. The A's cap logo is not in the same category as the TC, because A is the initial of part of the team's name -- in this case the nickname rather than the locality name. Likewise the Mariners' trident logo, the Dodgers' spring cap logo, and the Orioles' "O's" cap logo. Then there is the practice of representing both the locality name and the nickname together, as the Rockies do with their CR monogram. The Rangers once had a TR monogram which I think appeared on their helmets. Not my favourite practice, but it is at least defensible because it uses actual initials. None of these justifications apply to the TC logo. That cap logo is a remnant from a previous plan, in which the transferred Washington Senators were going to be called the "Twin Cities Twins". When that plan changed, the associated cap logo should have changed as well. So for me this bad cap logo mars any uniform that it is paired with. I was always under the impression that "Twins" was simply a shortened nickname for "Twin Cities" (as in, I thought they were supposed to officially be the Minnesota Twin Cities), which would at least help make it more acceptable.. Although, I'm pretty much always opposed to the initial of the nickname being used as a standalone identifier.. The Dodgers "D" cap is horrible imo.. I don't like the Orioles' "O's" cap either (for slightly different reasons), and the only semi-exception is the A's cap, mostly because it features the full "nickname" of the.. Um.. Nickname.. Although, I'd love to see an "O" cap introduced as an alt just for shiggles.. I prefer the Twins "M" cap, simply because it's most appropriate for their location, but I could let the TC cap slide since, despite the redundancy, it does reference location.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rj0498 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Just gonna rag on a division rival. Sorry but, I always thought these looked incredibly stupid. People may like them A lot but, I despise the number on the front, the fact that they look like pajamas (though that's a problem I have with unis around this time) and I just don't like that blue and red are the colors when the black and red they had was much cooler. I am glad they at least kept these as alts and went to their current awesome unis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Diego Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.