TheFallenHaveRisen

Jets new uniform speculation/leaks thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bluefalcon said:

The Winnipeg Jets don't have that problem, and they use the outline of an F-18 or F-16 as their logo. Their old 70s logo, however, was clearly a commercial jet:

 

spacer.pngspacer.png

The Winnipeg Jets do use a military jet. And they even use the Royal Canadian Air Force’s roundel. 

 

Thing is they pay the RCAF for the privilege, they have a prominent RCAF base close by, and they are tasteful enough to avoid dressing their players like actual fighter pilots. 

 

None of which could be said about the New York Jets if they lean heavily into the olive and black/FITERJETSRAWSOME direction some people here are arguing for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DeFrank said:

What kind of a plane is this?

 

New_York_Jets_Logo_1978-1997.png

 

A conceptual one.  And for this reason that wordmark is the best possible logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, DeFrank said:

What kind of a plane is this?

 

New_York_Jets_Logo_1978-1997.png

Growing up I always thought it was the Concorde. (sorry just saw the same thing above).

 

concorde.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was a concord. And the fact that one of the main routes for them was from New York to Paris is why they took inspiration for it as their logo.

Share this post


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

The Winnipeg Jets don't have that problem, and they use the outline of an F-18 or F-16 as their logo. Their old 70s logo, however, was clearly a commercial jet:

 

spacer.pngspacer.png

 

Can you really make the claim, though, that Canada and the U.S. are at all similar in how they position and employ their military philosophies? What might be a rather innocuous tribute in Canada can all of a sudden be perceived in a very different light when you move it to the U.S. simply because of the foreign policy differences between the two countries.

 

That’s a different discussion for a different platform, though. Back to the scheduled programming.

Share this post


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

 

As someone with several members of my family in the military, I don't see it that way. They all believe it's honoring them and the military, which is why they usually purchase hats/shirts for those teams despite having absolutely no other connection.

As someone who has members of my family in the military and has a few friends in it to boot? I can say some find the military themed uniforms in poor taste. Do these people speak for all military personnel? No, but that's my point. People who serve don't have a hive mind. They're all still people, with individual aesthetic preferences and senses of what's in poor taste or not. So let's try not use anecdotal evidence to try and say that one view over the other is the prevalent viewpoint of servicemen and servicewomen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

I've always assumed it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

 

Image result for concorde jets logo

 

I agree that it reminds me mostly of the Concorde. In which case it looks like the two Jets logos that have been planes depict aspirational commercial air travel. I don't think there's a 2019 equivalent. I think that's because of climate change. Because of 9/11. Because of what makes the 21st Century so far different than the 20th. I also don't think that the answer should be to replace it with a military plane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Growing up I always thought it was the Concorde. (sorry just saw the same thing above).

 

concorde.jpg

 

That reminds me,

 

spacer.png

 

I have to acquire several of them to get the parts needed to repair my TARDIS. I just need to disguise myself as a racist charicatire.

 

spacer.png

 

Perfect!

 

Time Flight is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as @andrewharrington pointed out...context matters regarding this stuff. Across the board when it comes to design, really. What works in Place A may not work in Place B.

 

Beyond that though? The re-emergence of people who fell like the NY Jets MUST have a cool and badass fighter jet motif raises an interesting point on how to best use a jet- be it a military or commercial jet- when designing a good logo for a sports team.

 

So let's look at some "fierce," "badass," and "cool" conceptual designs for both Jets teams, Winnipeg and New York.

 

 

 


IEpE5Wz.png

 

 

XpgQXKX.png

 

YuKZqIc.png

 

2wrbB1g.png

 

 

ZJbGbl5.png

 

 

Full disclosure- I removed everything from these concepts save for the jets themselves, so that element could stand on its own.

Anyway they're all pretty bad, if you ask me. They all fall into the trap that plagued 90s/early 2000s design. Too many highlights, too many angles, too much detail. They all work as cartoon illustrations of fighter jets, but as logos? They're all too much. They don't work.

 

So now let's look at some actual jet logos used by professional teams. Again, I removed everything but the jet portions so we can see them on their own, and hopefully understand why they work.

 

 

 


8gMHI6e.png

 

cOR6ypz.png

 

TS2NV8r.png

 

B2tZDMB.png

 

hygoHfJ.png

 

JpNJFiV.png
 

 

 

None of them are detailed. None of them are complex. There's been more than one person in this thread who have said the Memphis Express of the AAF have the best New York Jets conceptual logo and helmet, and when you look at that logo? It's really two chunks of blue shapes that simulate the look of a fighter jet without all the extra shading and detail that plague those above awful concepts.

 

The current Winnipeg Jets logo is, like the Express' logo, clearly a fighter jet. Still, it's not overly detailed or outlined. It's shaded, yes, but the shading it used very boldly, with the shaded aspects being only one of two colours on the entire jet. And while its shape is a bit more distinct? Again, detail doesn't wear it down. It's a shaded silhouette at the end of the day.

 

The previous Winnipeg logos, and those of the New York Jets, are remarkably similar. Simple silhouettes of passenger jets followed geometric shapes that allude to a jet shape without actually being defined enough to say what sort of jet they are. Could the second jet logos of both Winnipeg and New York be military jets? Sure. They could also be civilian passenger jets though. The shapes are vague enough to be either.

And this vagueness doesn't make either bad. Again, the super-simple abstract nature of the current Winnipeg Jets and Memphis Express logos show that the style of the second New York and Winnipeg logos is a feature rather than a bug. They imply sleekness, speed, and movement without being bogged down by too much shading, too many angles, or too much detail.

 

In short? Whatever the Jets do? It's in their best interests to keep the design simple. The name "Jets" is, in many ways, a trap. It conjures up images of sleek military jets that many concept artists love to dig into. Overly detailed, overly outlined and shaded, cartoon drawings of military hardware. These, however, don't make for effective logos.

 

The less detailed, the more abstract? The better. At least as far as this subject matter goes. Both Jets teams have managed that so far. Let's hope the New York football team doesn't screw it up with overly-detailed military porn.

 

14 minutes ago, DeFrank said:

I also don't think that the answer should be to replace it with a military plane. 

Which is why I think doing something abstract that implies the shape of a jet, while conveying speed, is the best way to go about it. A detailed military jet as a logo would be awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

So let's try not use anecdotal evidence to try and say that one view over the other is the prevalent viewpoint of servicemen and servicewomen.

 

"They all" was in reference to the dozen or so family members/friends I know in the military, not representative of every member of the military. Their opinion generally shapes my opinion of it, though I understand everyone doesn't necessarily feel the same way they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ice_Cap well freakin' said, man. never really thought of detail vs. ambiguity in terms of logos before, but that was really eye-opening on what appeals to me in a logo and what doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Which is why I think doing something abstract that implies the shape of a jet, while conveying speed, is the best way to go about it. A detailed military jet as a logo would be awful.

I totally agree and think me may have seen a preview of this on the leaked brand standards cover.

 

For me in sports logos, the less detail generally the better. The more detail, the more logos tend to look like cartoons. For instance, I like the one-color jaguars logo treatment while dislike the full color version. Full color is a nice illustration but I feel the one color is a stronger logo.

 

0ap1000000136416-16_9.jpg?width=580&heig0bc6751feee01b8744774a4d44da22f3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I totally agree and think me may have seen a preview of this on the leaked brand standards cover.

 

For me in sports logos, the less detail generally the better. The more detail, the more logos tend to look like cartoons. For instance, I like the one-color jaguars logo treatment while dislike the full color version. Full color is a nice illustration but I feel the one color is a stronger logo.

 

Good point. I also look at it from a “moving parts” perspective, with each section of detail (line strokes, fill areas, etc.) and color as a different “piece.” The more pieces there are, there’s more that can go wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how in that Jaguars graphic, the black and white one loses a lot of the sense of dimension in it. Like the color one is more of an angle, and the b/w is more profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DeFrank said:

What kind of a plane is this?

 

New_York_Jets_Logo_1978-1997.png

I always thought Concorde (I thought this would be unpopular, but apparently everyone else thinks so too!)

 

For the “commercial jet vs fighter jet” argument, I asked a few of my family members and friends at school. The only one who said they were named after commercial jets and not fighters was my mom (she’s also the only Jets fan out of everyone I asked, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). While my family and friends obviously isn’t representative of the entire football fanbase, it’s likely that most neutral observers, hearing the name “New York Jets”, will think fighter jet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Magic Dynasty said:

...most neutral observers, hearing the name “New York Jets”, will think fighter jet.

 

 

"Things that will trigger the members of CCSLC for $800, please, Alex."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just really really really hope they avoid the military jet fighter theme. And I think they will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was brought up in this thread before, but all the Jets free agency signings have been put on Instagram in this poster style.

 

 

I definitely would not hate this as the basis of the new team branding. You got the commercial jets and the New York skyline in a old poster style, kind of like what I posted in this thread a handful of pages back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, those jets seem pretty commercial and non-military to me ;) 

Share this post


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