SilverBullet1929

Miami Marlins 2019 Rebrand

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, djam2410 said:

 

 

That looks...so bad. It's a horrid, blob of a logo that doesn't stand out at all. There's a reason the initial black M the Marlins used was changed to White a few seasons ago. If recolored in white...then maybe...

Share this post


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

I like it. Like how the fin of the Marlin finishes the top of the M

 

I think it would look better if the fin curved away more similar to the other side of the M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a big 4 team in Miami is going to go with this color scheme, it might as well be the Marlins. But Christ, that's an ugly and unusually dark rendering of it. Here's hoping it's a primary that doesn't get used in practice all that often. I would love it if the ballcap logo ended up being a standalone-worthy "M" that could be worn to represent the city as much as (if not more than) the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first glance, that’s about as awful as I expected it to be. Solid #3 among Marlins primary logos, and this is only logo #3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels dated, but at least they didn't cave into pressure and revert to the teal look and/or "Florida Marlins" name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have doubts about its legitimacy, but if it’s the real deal, it’s definitely disappointing. The design is too dark, the showing is poorly-realized, and the overall aesthetic is fairly dated.

 

I’ll wait until the unveiling for more concrete analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the design and color scheme, but the balance feels off. Something about this rendering reminds me of the 2000s Blue Jays branding. It's just too dark. Hopefully the final branding won't focus as heavily on black as the logo does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fouhy12 said:

I like the design and color scheme, but the balance feels off. Something about this rendering reminds me of the 2000s Blue Jays branding. It's just too dark. Hopefully the final branding won't focus as heavily on black as the logo does.

 

I was thinking of the Mets in black: black and what appears to be sort of a magenta color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reserve my full judgement until I see the whole logo package and uniforms, but based on this right now — that’s too much black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kimball said:

SIDE NOTE: When do you think Marlins Park gets a corporate sponsor? 

 

Of all the new parks (since 2000 or so) the Marlins and Nationals are the only ones without a sponsor, no? Seems like a good time to jump onto that.

I wish we lived in a world where a corporate sponsor wasn't expected. In a perfect world, they'd remain Marlins and Nationals Parks.

Share this post


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

It feels dated, but at least they didn't cave into pressure and revert to the teal look and/or "Florida Marlins" name.

 

1. They can’t, they have a naming deal with the city. 

 

2. Is there any pressure to revert the name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is indeed the new Marlins logo, I'd have to see it enlarged and in its official capacity, of course. One of the things I recall about the Blue Jays logo was that while it appeared flat, it looked really good on caps because it has raised embroidery and other details that didn't translate into a digital graphic. Curious if the new Marlins logo would do something similar.

Share this post


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

I wish we lived in a world where a corporate sponsor wasn't expected. In a perfect world, they'd remain Marlins and Nationals Parks.

 

I get that. I guess, I’m used to it now ... for most parks. I don’t give a pass to stupid names like GuaranteedRate Field in Chicago. But, I prefer parks named after owners (Jacobs, Griffith, Comiskey, Turner, etc) or unique non-corporate names (Candlestick, Skydome, Riverfront, Three Rivers, etc).

Share this post


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

 

I get that. I guess, I’m used to it now ... for most parks. I don’t give a pass to stupid names like GuaranteedRate Field in Chicago. But, I prefer parks named after owners (Jacobs, Griffith, Comiskey, Turner, etc) or unique non-corporate names (Candlestick, Skydome, Riverfront, Three Rivers, etc).

Is it really better to name it after a billionaire than a corporation? Both seem equally less than ideal. 

 

I think everyone would prefer Geico (or whatever) Park to Loria Park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what I've seen so far, and this is the right shade of blue for the Marlins (IMO), but want to hold out to see the logo's application on hats and jerseys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would have liked teal over blue, blue/black/silver would be something unique within baseball. That alone will make it more interesting than the black and orange they seem to emphasize now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

Is it really better to name it after a billionaire than a corporation? Both seem equally less than ideal. 

 

I think everyone would prefer Geico (or whatever) Park to Loria Park.

 

New owners can usually change the name if it’s named after an owner. Tougher to do so when it’s named after a corporation. 

 

I’d rather have Jacobs Field than Progressive Field. 

 

Plus we all know Loria wouldn’t have named the stadium Loria Park if he had his druthers. 

Share this post


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

 

Not familiar with this account, but they seem to have a solid following. @SilverBullet1929?

 

 

 

I like this, though I would like it more if the marlin was blue.  As is, it blends in a bit too much with the M (as others have mentioned) and darkens the logo as a whole.

 

12 hours ago, goalieboy82 said:

 

 

I had forgotten about this cover.  No. 11 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the year of my birth*, per Wiki.

* -- 1967

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.