Jump to content

Logo upgrades that were actually UPGRADES


Recommended Posts

Can you think of any logo changes that you thought were actual upgrades? I'll post one as an example...

arsenal-Logos.png

The new one is nicer to look at, and it gets its point across quickly and plainly without subtracting from what the club is all about.

The older crest looks like an ugly Christmas sweater.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BigRed618 said:

Can you think of any logo changes that you thought were actual upgrades? I'll post one as an example...

arsenal-Logos.png

The new one is nicer to look at, and it gets its point across quickly and plainly without subtracting from what the club is all about.

The older crest looks like an ugly Christmas sweater.

 

Staying in North London...

0d2a1b8298e45f4f01fe74ac2cfba436.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Huge downgrade from the other one.  The extra blue keyline isn’t needed and only muddies up the design. 

 

there was a keyline, although thinner, on that previous design. i disagree it muddies it; i believe the white stroke is thick enough to work at small sizes but agree the silver stroke is a bit better as it "sits back" some. the entire lion though is made more clear by simplifying the line work  (especially the mane) and giving form to the silhouette by the addition of the lines that make the face and separate the legs from body. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The silver stroke doesn’t compete with the blue lion for focus.  The blue line does, and I can’t see any reason why they would add such a detail for the helmet.  They can’t believe that it helps the logo, or they would add it across the board.  So why add it at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

The silver stroke doesn’t compete with the blue lion for focus.  The blue line does, and I can’t see any reason why they would add such a detail for the helmet.  They can’t believe that it helps the logo, or they would add it across the board.  So why add it at all?

 

but what do you do for the silver helmet/background? i imagine they did it to reflect the Northwestern stripes (helmet, jersey, pants), with the addition of the white in the logo for the best contrast against silver. unnecessary on its own? yea, probably so, but useful to reflect the stripe pattern in the rest of the uniform; useful in the context of the uniform as a whole. i don't think its all perfect either, but certainly wouldn't say this is a "huge downgrade". just a little different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the Arizona Cardinals are a textbook example. The logo update was a grand slam. If only the same could be said about the uniforms...

 

A quick couple off the top of my head:

 

2559d7603ouedg7ldhw0br4fn.png

 

The Blue Jays have been covered and praised many times, and deservedly so. I’ll just echo many sentiments and say they nailed the whole thing.

 

 

 

oj83q73haoquhxqfiurpfhsgf.gif

 

The Pacers may seem like a weird one, and it’s not a perfect logo for sure, but I think this update was much bigger than it has been given credit for. The ball in fast, direct motion expresses a whole different feel to the identity than a ball still in a player’s hand. It wasn’t an enormous departure, but it still delivered a certain new clout to the identity. With this logo in unison with the FloJos, the identity looked “fast” and had a certain speed to it that the previous logo didn’t exhibit. It was a really great, underrated update in my mind. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BigRed618 said:

 

You sure about the Rams? I think it looked better with the gold myself

 

i do like the blue and white better (eliminates some odd highlights) but i was actually thinking of the helmet logo it replaced. the colors i could go either way on i guess

 

3110.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

The silver stroke doesn’t compete with the blue lion for focus.  The blue line does, and I can’t see any reason why they would add such a detail for the helmet.  They can’t believe that it helps the logo, or they would add it across the board.  So why add it at all?

 

That puzzles me as well. The primary application for a football team’s logo (not the biggest application or the one with the most volume, but probably the most important) is the helmet. The extra outlines make the logo look fuzzy on the helmet (at least from any distance). If the outlines made the logo better on the other products, I could maybe see some justification, but I don’t even think that they do, so I question why they’re there. If your logo is as simple as the Cowboys’ star, then sure, the outlines jazz it up without overpowering the very simple shape, but a logo like Detroit’s, with all that silhouette detail? The outlines detract from the craftsmanship of the line work.

 

I find it interesting that sports are really the only place you regularly see outlines added to design to make something work on different colors. That tells me it’s a trope that people feel is “the look” for a sports logo. It’s a crutch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

but what do you do for the silver helmet/background? i imagine they did it to reflect the Northwestern stripes (helmet, jersey, pants), with the addition of the white in the logo for the best contrast against silver. unnecessary on its own? yea, probably so, but useful to reflect the stripe pattern in the rest of the uniform; useful in the context of the uniform as a whole. i don't think its all perfect either, but certainly wouldn't say this is a "huge downgrade". just a little different

 

I see how it reflects the pattern of the stripes. In that sense, it “matches,” but I don’t think it “coordinates” very well because the scales are so different. At any distance, you get this effect of the fuzzy logo against the big, bold stripes. They match but they don’t look the same in context. Now, take the outlines away from the logo, and you have a big, bold logo against big, bold stripes, which coordinates a lot better even though they no longer match. They have silver touching blue all over the rest of the uniform, so I don’t think it would be a contrast issue to remove the fluff, either.

 

1046056274.jpeg&c=sc&w=3200&h=2133

 

It’s tough to find a good shot, but you can kinda see here: the stripes look crisp and bold, while the logo looks fuzzy by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Good list, with the exception of the falcons, IMHO.  I understand why they'd want to upgrade the old one... too simple, no red, dated... but the new angry attack bird just goes too far. It's almost like a parody of aggressive logos.

 

And that GD swollen talon and squat wings...I frankly hate that thing. They could’ve done a much better job of updating the original (and the original did need updating, yes).

 

For example, I love this concept by @LogoFan . It’s my favorite attempt at updating the original I’ve seen yet:

 

Falcons_Release_090117.gif.ee6baa841e47e

 

I might have “swooped” it a little more to give it some speed, but this is still just about everything I wish Atlanta had done instead of energy drink bird.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.