Cincinnati Reds: Time For A Change?

[SFGiants58]

29 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

HARD disagree. I always thought that looked like a photo negative. The full oval-like shape is necessary because it contains all the elements into one shape, which is what makes it a logo. There was too much white space around REDS for my liking, especially if you place it on a grey, black, red background. The best solution is to simply thicken the red stroke around the entire thing like so

 

 

 

Also, the white C on the jerseys matches the white C on the hat because the perfect Reds hat is a red crown with a white C.

 

Yeah, thickening the outline does improve it (heck, I've done that before). Still, the "photo negative" version isn't that bad.

 

While I like the white outlines all-around on the road uniform, I simply can't get behind that number font. Something about it just rubs me the wrong way. I prefer Block Standard Bold:

 

 

...or a font based around the 1950s/early-60s designs.

 

 

Even though I like the all-around white outlines, eliminating white outlines also looks fantastic:

 

[Sport]

15 minutes ago, THRILLHO said:

@McCarthy 

Taste plays a big part in all this, but I agree with you on these Reds design.  Recently the Reds Instagram account posted a video of Adam Dunn hitting a home run off Jose Lima at GABP when Lima was on the Dodgers.  At that time the Dodgers road uniforms had white outlines around the letters and numbers and it had a headspoon on the road uniform.  For me the dodgers road uniform is more attractive without the white and the headspoon.  With the Reds, I’m with you, I prefer the white trim on the letters and numbers for the road grey.  Also, that red/white/red piping on the road greys has carried over to the current road design’s pants and sleeves.  It is one of the things I like about the road design.  They could have included that on the home uniform too.  

 

 

 

Since 2007 (I can't believe we're in year 13 of these uniforms) I've been saying they should've. My hope is that the buzz around all these throwback uniforms gets Reds brass to consider going back to something more befitting a team of their history. 

 

I've pontificated on this before, but I think the reason blue looks better than red when placed right on top of gray is because it's in the same color family as the standard MLB gray so it's a natural coupling whereas red and gray have a visual vibration when butted up against one another and need that color separating the two to look their best. 

 

The other issue with those Dodgers road grays was I think they actually had a gray outline surrounded by a white outline. On a long word like Los Angeles, spelled out in script, with two outlines, that's a lot to look at. That was a case that was better when simplified

 

 

 

I say all that to say that white outlines can sometimes look really good

 

I really like how Detroit uses it, I really like how Kansas City uses it. If I had a vote I'd vote for the Yankees to keep it. 

[FiddySicks]

All of this talk about the Reds throwback uniforms really dredges up my love for the Reds in red and white without any additional colors. That's LONG since been my favorite baseball uniform, and seeing them so prominently lately really cements that. 

 

Also, @McCarthy is right. That last Reds pullover road uniform with the white outlines around Cincinnati and the names and numbers is absolutely perfect for the Reds. 

[The_Admiral]

4 hours ago, McCarthy said:

*waits for people to tell me why white outlines are the worst thing to ever to baseball uniforms and they prefer the pre-1988 road uniform.*

 

The white outlines were right for the television quality of the time, but with a light enough grey, they shouldn't need them anymore.

 

EDIT:

3 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I've pontificated on this before, but I think the reason blue looks better than red when placed right on top of gray is because it's in the same color family as the standard MLB gray so it's a natural coupling whereas red and gray have a visual vibration when butted up against one another and need that color separating the two to look their best. 

Didn't see this when I replied, but that's a very good point. Should the Reds wear a warm grey instead of the bluish-greenish cool grey that's standard? I've long thought that the Cardinals should have a distinctively yellowish grey (Gashouse Grey?), as should the brown/yellow Padres. Conversely, the Royals should have a much bluer tint to recall the powder blue without going all the way. 

[Walter Sobchak]

11 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

Since 2007 (I can't believe we're in year 13 of these uniforms) I've been saying they should've. My hope is that the buzz around all these throwback uniforms gets Reds brass to consider going back to something more befitting a team of their history. 

 

I've pontificated on this before, but I think the reason blue looks better than red when placed right on top of gray is because it's in the same color family as the standard MLB gray so it's a natural coupling whereas red and gray have a visual vibration when butted up against one another and need that color separating the two to look their best. 

 

The other issue with those Dodgers road grays was I think they actually had a gray outline surrounded by a white outline. On a long word like Los Angeles, spelled out in script, with two outlines, that's a lot to look at. That was a case that was better when simplified

 

 

 

I say all that to say that white outlines can sometimes look really good

 

I really like how Detroit uses it, I really like how Kansas City uses it. If I had a vote I'd vote for the Yankees to keep it. 

I prefer the Reds and Yankees without white outlines, but I don’t mind them. I definitely prefer the Tigers without them though.

[Sport]

17 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

The white outlines were right for the television quality of the time, but with a light enough grey, they shouldn't need them anymore.

 

That may very well be true, but by now the white outlines serve a different purpose, which is to buffer the red from the gray for simple design choice reasons. Single color on gray makes the statement that this is supposed to evoke old, golden-age feels with no extra frills, to throwback to a time when the road uniforms weren't important because the home fans literally never saw them. The Reds could very much pull that off if they wanted to. Color script with a white outline makes a different statement - Gives it an extra layer, extra detail, says "this is a big league team with the cash to blow on double layer twill." MAKES THE NUMBERS POP, BABY!!! If the Reds were to get rid of all the black dropshadows and move back to a strictly red/white scheme then it makes sense to treat white like one of their colors and use it on outlines the same way the Pirates and A's use yellow. 

 

What I don't like is mixing the two. If you're going to go stroke-free then no white can be present on the uniform. If you're going to use the redwhitered striping then you have to use white on the name and numbers. 

 

17 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

Didn't see this when I replied, but that's a very good point. Should the Reds wear a warm grey instead of the bluish-greenish cool grey that's standard? I've long thought that the Cardinals should have a distinctively yellowish grey (Gashouse Grey?), as should the brown/yellow Padres. Conversely, the Royals should have a much bluer tint to recall the powder blue without going all the way. 

 

I thought back when the Padres went to the khaki road uniforms in 2004 that we'd get a renaissance of non-gray road uniforms, but done more tastefully and understated than what was tried in the 70's and 80's, and I welcomed the possibility. But then the Padres proceeded to wear the full tan uni like 6 times over the 5-ish years they had it before switching to their super boring, purposely lifeless brand identity. 

 

It's possible those Padres uniforms were just ahead of their time. We're in a period now where bright colors are back in style, players aren't afraid to wear loud uniforms with instagram and uni-watch culture playing a big part. You wear a bright uniform, regardless of how ugly or poorly designed it is, and you get a bunch more fire emojis in the comments than if you wear a tastefully designed gray shirt. You also have teams like the Cardinals and Pirates using non-gray uniforms as full-time alternates rather than just the odd throwback intended to laugh at the novelty of powder blue or yellow or tequila sunrise. The pendulum has swung back and the standard issue MLB gray isn't the best color for a lot of teams' color palletes so I'm up for more differentiation team-to-team. 

 

The thing that may be holding teams back from experimenting with the color of their road uniform is probably the single uniform manufacturer model. Majestic standardized all the gray uniforms to one color to streamline their process and because the cool base jerseys were difficult to color match. But if there's any uniform supplier who wouldn't be afraid to goof around with them, it's Nike, who takes over next season. 

[THRILLHO]

22 hours ago, McCarthy said:

l If the Reds were to get rid of all the black dropshadows and move back to a strictly red/white scheme then it makes sense to treat white like one of their colors and use it on outlines the same way the Pirates and A's use yellow. 

 

What I don't like is mixing the two. If you're going to go stroke-free then no white can be present on the uniform. If you're going to use the redwhitered striping then you have to use white on the name and numbers. 

 

 

If they did finally remove the dropshadows having white be the outline would be logical. They already have it in place. It’s technically used as an outline even on the white jersey. If you look closely you can see here.  

 

I completely agree on the mix match comment.  If you do white trim you gotta incorporate it all over 

[SilverBullet1929]

On 8/20/2019 at 9:25 AM, McCarthy said:

a time when the road uniforms weren't important because the home fans literally never saw them

Holy cow this is so true it's jarring to think about it. Imagine, from our perspective, as people who passionately discuss sports uniforms, that there was a period of time where you almost literally never saw half of a team's uniform set. That's mind boggling to think about now.

[SilverBullet1929]

This might sound crazy in this thread but as much as the Reds don't need black and all those drop shadows around the names, numbers and wordmarks, I don't mind the drop shadow on the cap or on the primary logo. Maybe it's because I've seen it for twenty years already but it's pretty ingrained in my mind by now.

[Jungle Jim]

The Reds have been running polls on their Twitter account, with the results playing out as a tournament.  1976 and 1969 are in the finals, and even though most of the votes have been close, it looks like 1976 is going to run away with it.  It's 64% to 63% with eight hours to go as I type this. I suspect this may have more to do with a fondness for the teams that wore the uniform than an aesthetic appreciation of the uniform itself.

 

It makes me wonder if this is just a fun little exercise they're doing, or if they're trying to gauge interest in preparation for new uniforms, or possibly alternates.

 

 

 

[Gothamite]

That would be a spectacularly dumb way to conduct a focus group. 

 

The club already knows which of the throwback uniforms their fans prefer, based on what they sold at the park this year.  That’s a much better barometer of public sentiment. 

[floydnimrod]

The Reds have been using that font on the bracket graphic since they hosted the All star Game (it's on all the section markers around the stadium as well) so it make me wonder if they're going to go in that direction soon.

 

I, for one, LOVE the current design. I get that everyone wants a team to trot out the same look they had at some point in their history (usually from when they were a child). But it's not going to happen.

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, fnz said:

I, for one, LOVE the current design. I get that everyone wants a team to trot out the same look they had at some point in their history (usually from when they were a child). But it's not going to happen.

 

You know, there’s a way to make your point without being a bit patronizing.  Maybe we could engage in some armchair physiology to determine why you didn’t go that route.

[BrandMooreArt]

12 hours ago, Jungle Jim said:

The Reds have been running polls on their Twitter account, with the results playing out as a tournament.  1976 and 1969 are in the finals, and even though most of the votes have been close, it looks like 1976 is going to run away with it.  It's 64% to 63% with eight hours to go as I type this. I suspect this may have more to do with a fondness for the teams that wore the uniform than an aesthetic appreciation of the uniform itself.

 

It makes me wonder if this is just a fun little exercise they're doing, or if they're trying to gauge interest in preparation for new uniforms, or possibly alternates.

 

 

 

 

omg, the pullover jersey is going to win LOLz

[The_Admiral]

3 hours ago, fnz said:

The Reds have been using that font on the bracket graphic since they hosted the All star Game (it's on all the section markers around the stadium as well) so it make me wonder if they're going to go in that direction soon.

 

The one at the top? As well they should, it has an Art Nouveau feel to it without being as contrived as the one they use on their uniforms. 

[Sport]

1969 with some modernly proportioned names and numbers and a thicker outline on the Creds logo is the correct answer. They can't go back to pullovers and if they did then the 88 uniforms are the far superior version to the 70's unis. The reason the 70's version won the poll is because a heavy percentage of Reds fans are stupid and voted for the BRM uniform. Only I'm allowed to say this.

 

 

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

That would be a spectacularly dumb way to conduct a focus group. 

 

The club already knows which of the throwback uniforms their fans prefer, based on what they sold at the park this year.  That’s a much better barometer of public sentiment. 

I don't know if that's a good barometer either. They've been selling the pullover throwbacks * for a long time now, but not really any other throwback from the team's past. Jersey buying fans may have taken the opportunity to purchase a throwback jersey the team hasn't sold before. I feel like I saw a lot of people in those 1911 navy blue jerseys this year and I wouldn't want them to wear those at all.  

 

 

*almost exclusively the BRM version, which irks me. I know Barry Larkin and Eric Davis technically wore it and 99% of fans don't notice or care about the differences, but I want the one they wore in 1990. 

[Jungle Jim]

10 hours ago, fnz said:

I, for one, LOVE the current design. I get that everyone wants a team to trot out the same look they had at some point in their history (usually from when they were a child). But it's not going to happen.

 

Why not?  The Tigers, Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Red Sox, Orioles, Astros, Royals, Blue Jays, Cubs, Mets, and Giants, to name a few, wear basically the same (or a very similar) uniform they have worn at some distant period in their history. Those on Twitter calling for a return of pullovers and waistbands are out of their minds, but some of us are just asking for the removal of the black and the use of a traditional font, here.

[floydnimrod]

23 hours ago, Jungle Jim said:

 

Why not?  The Tigers, Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Red Sox, Orioles, Astros, Royals, Blue Jays, Cubs, Mets, and Giants, to name a few, wear basically the same (or a very similar) uniform they have worn at some distant period in their history. Those on Twitter calling for a return of pullovers and waistbands are out of their minds, but some of us are just asking for the removal of the black and the use of a traditional font, here.

It's probably me interpreting people's ideas wrong when they say "just wear the 1969 uniforms" or "where exactly what they did in 1990" and not modern updates to them. Personally, I don't want the 1969 look because there's already an NL Central team that wear predominantly Red and has no piping or stripes. I definitely agree that pullovers and waistbands were a thing of a specific era, and shouldn't comeback other than a throwback every now and again. I do think it looks weird when the Creds logo has s standard block font but nothing else in the branding has it.

 

I think my "beef" with the removal of black is what's usually a lack of outline on the road uniforms' numbers/wordmark. I think it looks bad with red. But what looks worse is what the Tigers are doing: their home uniforms have one color for the numbers and the roads have THREE colors. The drop shadow the Reds use on both allows for consistency in the numbers.

 

Right now on the Reds website they have a 2020 season tickets image that uses the wider version of the font above at the top of the uniforms voting bracket. On the image the "Reds" script and "2020" are in a darker red. Removing black, but using two shades of red would be my dream.

[Jungle Jim]

7 hours ago, fnz said:

Right now on the Reds website they have a 2020 season tickets image that uses the wider version of the font above at the top of the uniforms voting bracket. On the image the "Reds" script and "2020" are in a darker red. Removing black, but using two shades of red would be my dream.

 

I see what you're referring to.  Interesting. 

 

https://www.mlb.com/reds/tickets

 

I'm hoping for a change to something traditional, but I suppose I could settle for that font.  Anything to get rid of the faux, contrived, Olde Timey 1869 font.  It has gotten so stale.

[BBTV]

That page also changes the colors of my iPad tab and address bar to dark red. Never seen that before.