SportsLogos.Net News

2019 MLB Changes

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, ZipperClub said:

Marc Okkonen, who handled the graphics for the Dressed to the Nines website, passed away Monday.

 

SABR’s obituary: https://sabr.org/latest/memoriam-marc-okkonen

That’s so sad! Dressed to the nines is a great site, big help on my projects, would recommend to anyone who’s interested in baseball jersey history. It’s got history all the way back to 1900

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoke to someone who would know about the Nats/Expos throwback uniforms, and he strongly alluded that it would be happening.

 

He did the ole "I can't say (wink)"... one of those type of things.  So it's not officially confirmed, but I'm expecting it'll happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

It's not "blatant nothing"; it's an "e" and a "b", with the negative space completing the "M" for Montréal. It's exactly like how the Whalers used the negative space of a "W" and a whale's tail to make an "H" for Hartford.

 

Except that the Hartford logo is actually, you know, good.  

 

Theres no element here that doesn’t tie directly into the “H”, “W”, or the whale tail.

 

spacer.png

 

No phantom letters cluttering up the design. Each element clear and unmistakeable, coherent and complete in its own right. 

Simple and precise imagery that has never had to be re-defined over time, never seen shifting explanations from the team itself. Not everybody glimpses the totality on first sight, but once you get it you get it, and there isn’t ever any question as to what it contains.

 

Which actually makes the Expos’ design almost the opposite of “exactly like” the Whalers’.  😛 

Share this post


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

Except that the Hartford logo is actually, you know, good.  

 

Theres no element here that doesn’t tie directly into the “H”, “W”, or the whale tail.

 

No phantom letters cluttering up the design. Each element clear and unmistakeable, coherent and complete in its own right. 

Simple and precise imagery that has never had to be re-defined over time, never seen shifting explanations from the team itself. Not everybody glimpses the totality on first sight, but once you get it you get it, and there isn’t ever any question as to what it contains.

 spacer.png

Dunno, they already did try redefining the Hartford logo as having a giant grey shield. 😛

 

And no, it's not as good, but I'd hesitate to outright call it a bad logo. When I think "bad logo", I think "poorly drawn", "ugly-looking" or "bland as hell". It's a very simple logo; an "M" that has an "e" and a "b" in the design with some negative space. The fact that the logo has still been so popular years after the team moved to D.C proves it's a logo that worked. It's an iconic logo, even if it's not perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh.  That "update".

 

13 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

And no, it's not as good, but I'd hesitate to outright call it a bad logo. When I think "bad logo", I think "poorly drawn", "ugly-looking" or "bland as hell".

 

Those are some criteria for bad.  But I'd like to add another.  The elb is certainly poorly designed, when the team itself can't clearly articulate what the symbols mean and the people viewing it have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

Those are some criteria for bad.  But I'd like to add another.  The elb is certainly poorly designed, when the team itself can't clearly articulate what the symbols mean and the people viewing it have no idea.

It could be improved, certainly; but the concept of incorporating an "e" and "b" into an "m" shape isn't bad. It seems more an execution issue then a concept issue, in my opinion.

Share this post


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

And no, it's not as good, but I'd hesitate to outright call it a bad logo. When I think "bad logo", I think "poorly drawn", "ugly-looking" or "bland as hell".

 

Those are some criteria for bad.  But I'd like to add another.  The elb is certainly poorly designed, when the team itself can't clearly articulate what the symbols mean and the people viewing it have no idea.

 

From one 1969 newspaper story: "A mod-shaped 'M' for Montreal, encompassing an 'E' for Expos, and italicized 'For Forward Movement'."

 

From another 1969 newspaper story: "The symbol incorporates M for Montreal and E for Expos, italicized to indicate 'forward movement'."

That's pretty articulate.  And perfectly clear.

You certainly don't have to like the logo. If you want to call the logo badly designed, then I can get behind that sort of comment, even if I disagree with it.

 

It is also a fair comment to mention that ordinary people often had trouble figuring the logo out.  Indeed, I myself have shared the vignette from the sitcom Newhart in which both George and Dick are baffled by the logo.

 

Related image
(Click here.)

 

And even those of us who like the logo can criticise the team for retconning its official explanation in later years to include a mention of a B at a time when the original designers and team officials were no longer around to issue corrections. 

 

However, you are not entitled to make factually false statements.  Furthermore, continuing to refer to the logo as "elb", when we can firmly establish that it includes no L, is an act of bad faith that is well below your usual standards. 

 

By all means argue your points forcefully; but please do not lapse into practices that degrade the standard of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

However, you are not entitled to make factually false statements.

 

There’s a white shape that looks vaguely like a lowercase l and many other posters have backed him up. I fail to see the problem.

 

12 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

  Furthermore, continuing to refer to the logo as "elb", when we can firmly establish that it includes no L, is an act of bad faith that is well below your usual standards. 

 

It’s hardly bad faith. There’s a shape that looks like a lowercase “l” in the design.

 

12 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

By all means argue your points forcefully; but please do not lapse into practices that degrade the standard of discussion.

 

I don’t see any serious degradation. My Wahoo comparison (I should have used a less controversial design, I admit - the Canucks’ skate or the Sonics’ skyline logo would be more appropriate) was far more egregious than anything @Gothamite has said. 

 

Look, I get that you like it and feel compelled to defend it, but there are some fights that just aren’t worth it. Gothamite hasn’t messed up at all, but rather you got frustrated with him using the term “elb” repeatedly (which, let’s face it, is kind of what the logo looks like if we’re using the formalist - read: authorial intent is irrelevant - perspective). Let it go.

Share this post


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

However, you are not entitled to make factually false statements.

 

There’s a white shape that looks vaguely like a lowercase l and many other posters have backed him up. I fail to see the problem.

 

The false statement was that "team itself can't clearly articulate what the symbols mean". The team in fact did clearly articulate this before it ever played a game.

 

24 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:
Quote

  Furthermore, continuing to refer to the logo as "elb", when we can firmly establish that it includes no L, is an act of bad faith that is well below your usual standards. 

 

It’s hardly bad faith. There’s a shape that looks like a lowercase “l” in the design

 

I won't dispute that the white space can look like an L.  But is in fact not an L.  This is not a trivial distinction.

 

 

26 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:
Quote

 

By all means argue your points forcefully; but please do not lapse into practices that degrade the standard of discussion.

 

I don’t see any serious degradation. My Wahoo comparison (I should have used a less controversial design, I admit - the Canucks’ skate or the Sonics’ skyline logo would be more appropriate) was far more egregious than anything @Gothamite has said.

 

Your Wahoo comparison might have been poorly reasoned; but it was offered in good faith. And the act advanced the discussion.  Therefore it was not in any way objectionable.

 

 

28 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Look, I get that you like it and feel compelled to defend it,

 

I must point out that in making this particular point I am not defending the logo.  I have stated that I like the logo.  But, at the same time, I do not consider it to be above criticism or even mockery, as evidenced by my sharing of the Newhart clip.  (Also, when Claire Bronfman was arrested in the bizarre NXIVM sex cult case, I offered the quip: "And we thought that the Bronfmans' worst crime was the Expos logo", just for the sake of going for the laugh.)

 

 

38 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

you got frustrated with him using the term “elb” repeatedly

 

I did.  If you think the logo stinks, then you should say that the logo stinks.  And no one can complain if you point out the fact that many people are confused by the logo. But I would hope that we can all agree that you shouldn't say things that you know aren't true as a means to buttress your point.

Share this post


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

It could be improved, certainly; but the concept of incorporating an "e" and "b" into an "m" shape isn't bad. It seems more an execution issue then a concept issue, in my opinion.

 

Oh, I'd agree with you there.  There's definitely a possible version of a successful "M" logo that contains an "e" and "b". 

 

But that sure ain't it.

Share this post


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

 

Oh, I'd agree with you there.  There's definitely a possible version of a successful "M" logo that contains an "e" and "b". 

 

But that sure ain't it.

 

That’s all true, but I’m curious about your take on the claims that you’re arguing in bad faith. It helps to shore things up. 😉

Share this post


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

The false statement was that "team itself can't clearly articulate what the symbols mean". The team in fact did clearly articulate this before it ever played a game.

 

And you admit that they later changed their explanation as to what the logo contained.  That is to what I was referring, and your own admission proves the truth of my statement.

 

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

And even those of us who like the logo can criticise the team for retconning its official explanation in later years to include a mention of a B at a time when the original designers and team officials were no longer around to issue corrections. 

 

If the Expos could clearly articulate what the symbols mean, they wouldn't have had to retcon the official explanation.  I actually suspect they had no idea what was originally said in 1969, this being before readily-accessible online newspaper archives and before the excellent detective work of Mister Radom.  So somebody wrote copy saying what they personally saw in the logo, which happens to not line up with what the original designers wanted them to see in the logo.  Which makes sense because: bad design.

 

28 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I won't dispute that the white space can look like an L.  But is in fact not an L.  This is not a trivial distinction.

 

Perhaps not.  But it is a distinction without a difference.

 

28 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I did.  If you think the logo stinks, then you should say that the logo stinks.  And no one can complain if you point out the fact that many people are confused by the logo. But I would hope that we can all agree that you shouldn't say things that you know aren't true as a means to buttress your point.

 

I do, and I did.

 

And yes, I pointed out that the logo is confusing.  

 

28 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

But I would hope that we can all agree that you shouldn't say things that you know aren't true as a means to buttress your point.

 

Absolutely.  And that's why it's good that I did no such thing.  😛 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, this is a fascinating moment in history, everyone.

 

it appears that Ferdinand and Gothamite have each selected a hill to die on. Unfortunately, those hills are on the opposite ends of town, and the CCSLC townsfolk will have to listen to them yell at each can other from their hills until one keels over from exhaustion. 

Share this post


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

Now, this is a fascinating moment in history, everyone.

 

it appears that Ferdinand and Gothamite have each selected a hill to die on. Unfortunately, those hills are on the opposite ends of town, and the CCSLC townsfolk will have to listen to them yell at each can other from their hills until one keels over from exhaustion. 

 

By that logic, I’m the eyepatch dude from 300. I’m on one side, but I am left to observe and elaborate on my damnations, however nonsensically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen 300, but damn if that isn't an evocative image.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M logo is iconic, yes. Iconic is not directly correlated to good, there’s just as many things iconic for being bad as their are for being good. The only reason that logo is still around is nostalgia. I personally have never seen it, never on tv, never in person. (Outside of direct references) Hell I’ve even seen a Nats logo next to the name Montreal Expos before. It’s not that popular. I’ve seen more Brooklyn Dodgers hats than expos, and the dodgers left 50 some years ago

Share this post


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

I've never seen 300, but damn if that isn't an evocative image.  :D 

 

You’re missing out on an over-stylized, super-inaccurate adaptation of whackadoodle Frank Miller’s comic adaptation of a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae! There’s an almost ridiculous amount of homoeroticism as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I can say in good faith that the Expos logo is objectively "good", but it's literally achieved the purpose of a logo better than most: it's iconic. When people say Expos, their mind jumps to that logo, and when they see that logo, it immediately connects to the Expos. I can't think of many other logos that stand in so well for their team. The Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, and probably a couple others in baseball could work, but the point is that the Expos logo has done what is was designed to do: become synonymous with the team.

 

(Also, I can see both the "elb" and the "eMb", and I especially think the concept has potential, if the M was cleaned up and the three letters were separated a bit better, to make them more distinct.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

 especially think the concept has potential, if the M was cleaned up and the three letters were separated a bit better, to make them more distinct.)

 

I really think it does have potential.  But the M doesn't read as an M, and that should be the first thing fixed.  You're right, separating the strokes is a necessary first step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk has made me think about buying an Expos hat. Not the pinwheel one, that's too knowingly retro, just a nice simple blue one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.