MLB Changes 2020

[packerfan21396]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

The Brewers' M/wheat cap logo features both a drop shadow and an outline. It's too much clutter. You can have one or the other, but not both.

That's an interesting thought that got me thinking what that'd look like.  Assuming that the Reds, Angels, Marlins, Twins, Giants, Rays, and Rangers all have cluttered logos as well, then these quick and dirty fixes would be the options:

[IceCap]

All of those look so much better than the current M/wheat logo. That plain white M over the golden wheat option is pretty much ideal as far as a Brewers cap logo goes.

[Gothamite]

Indeed. That doesn't solve all the letter's problems, such as the inconsistent line widths, goofy serifs and disjointed directionals.  But it solves two of them, the cluttering outline and drop-shadow. 

[Lights Out]

I wouldn't mind the Brewers going for a Seattle Pilots type of look with their caps.

 

 

[Gothamite]

I like the M, but why would you do the rest of that to the True Blue Brew Crew?  

[SFGiants58]

Just now, Gothamite said:

I like the M, but why would you do the rest of that to the True Blue Brew Crew?  

 

@Lights Out has tried to do the "unique color scheme" deal for all the MLB teams, and he chose forest green/athletic gold/creme for the Brewers. I like a lot of what he proposed, but this one kind of lost me.

 

While I get why he did it, the green/gold combo should be an A's-only look. Heck, it's why my favorite "attempted relocation" concept is the Milwaukee Athletics.

 

 

But back to the topic at hand, I've also done that "barley leaf-block M" design, paired with a new Owgust/Beer Barrelman logo.

 

 

Owgust and the BiG are an excellent pair, IMHO (with a block M for American Association throwbacks/Braves nostalgia).

[The_Admiral]

On 9/26/2019 at 8:44 PM, MattMill said:

Ive always found the M wheat as more of a corporate identity. We see it with the miller park wordmark. Same M. So I don’t see the M as a real Milwaukee wordmark, but moreso who owns them. It’s the Miller Brewers, not Milwaukee. The glove doesn’t have any of that corporate stuff working with or against it. In its purest form, that’s true a Milwaukee brewer logo. 

 

Miller never owned the Brewers, Bud Selig did and then he sold it to some other investor guy. They just had the naming rights to Miller Park, and those expire in a few months.

[Gothamite]

In 2021.  We have one more year of Miller Park. 

 

And you’re right, Miller never owned the Brewers and the wheaty-M has nothing to do with Miller.  I almost wish that it did, so we’d know for a fact that it’s going away. 

[MattMill]

Yeah. My bad guys. The miller park M and the wheat M have one main similarity, the left curl. But other than that, it’s not the same.  I’ve just always assumed their rebrand happened at the same time as their new park, which has a slightly similar M. Always felt more than a coincidence 
 

Before Miller Lites retro rebrand, Miller and it’s wordmark was much more prominent on packaging too. The curled M was everywhere. Then we see a baseball team with a fancier curled M. I’m not from the area. But I always correlated the time together. 

[Pizzaman7294]

14 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

That's an interesting thought that got me thinking what that'd look like.  Assuming that the Reds, Angels, Marlins, Twins, Giants, Rays, and Rangers all have cluttered logos as well, then these quick and dirty fixes would be the options:

 

Very last one is money

[packerfan21396]

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

That doesn't solve all the letter's problems, such as the inconsistent line widths, goofy serifs and disjointed directionals.

Then you're left with this:

"Equal line weight" if you never rotate the calligraphic pen, no serifs, no disjointed top.

[IceCap]

That looks pretty good. 

 

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

@Lights Out has tried to do the "unique color scheme" deal for all the MLB teams, and he chose forest green/athletic gold/creme for the Brewers. I like a lot of what he proposed, but this one kind of lost me.

The best non-blue and gold suggestion I've seen for the Brewers was the Padres' old/new brown and gold scheme. It was so perfectly Midwest baseball. 

 

Of course that scheme is rightfully the Padres' again so I don't think the Brewers should use that. That being said? It could work in an alternate timeline. 

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

Then you're left with this:

"Equal line weight" if you never rotate the calligraphic pen, no serifs, no disjointed top.

 

It’s a real stretch to equate that to calligraphy.

 

You can’t fix the problems with the wheaty-M unless you’re willing to redraw it from scratch.  Takes more than a band-aid to cover those flaws. 

[MilSox]

This entire page is a testament to why the current brand is garbage.  They tried to do way too much with what could have been executed so simply, so timelessly and so beautifully.



Instead they tried to be "modern with a classic feel" (actual verbiage) and wound up with something so cumbersome yet bland that it wound up being the best possible testament to the simple quirkiness of the BiG.  Now the BiG is every bit a part of the Brewers brand as the H-Star is of the Astros and the bird head is of the Blue Jays.  There's just no going back now.

[MattMill]

Hatclub released a royal blue/yellow M wheat cap last year

 

Decent blend of era

 

They need to officially release these blends and see what sticks. 
 

They also did a regular white M wheat game cap with a green bill, taking it back to the motre bame era. They’re definitely in the midst of an identity crisis. 

[MilSox]

...and release yet ANOTHER version of those franken-unis they've been wearing to accomodate the new colors?

No thanks.  They need to take the momentum they've built with the navy BiG and go forward with that.  

[SFGiants58]

3 minutes ago, NicDB said:

...and release yet ANOTHER version of those franken-unis they've been wearing to accomodate the new colors?

No thanks.  They need to take the momentum they've built with the navy BiG and go forward with that.  

 

They fixed the webbing error. That means they want it in their brand for good, perhaps as a primary.

[packerfan21396]

5 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

It’s a real stretch to equate that to calligraphy.

 

You can’t fix the problems with the wheaty-M unless you’re willing to redraw it from scratch.  Takes more than a band-aid to cover those flaws. 

I'm using "calligraphy" as the description of a script that has been made as if it was written with calligraphy tools.  "Calligraphy" can also describe the art of using tools and brushes to create typographical art or script based art.  The "flaws" are subjective.  I actually do not like the extremely stripped down M barley I just made to attempt to appease your "qualifications" to make it great.

 

All the supposed rules to make a baseball logo doesn't generate a perfect logo.  Logos with imperfections and quirks are the ones that become successful and become cult classics.

 

From a typographical standpoint, the serifs, the disjointed top, and the thicker vertical lines are fine and mesh with the style of the font.  If you're a baseball purist that's been fed a diet of arched block, equal width scripts, and at most single outlines for decades, then yeah, it's a change to the baseball landscape that might "look bad."

 

22 minutes ago, NicDB said:

Instead they tried to be "modern with a classic feel" (actual verbiage) and wound up with something so cumbersome yet bland that it wound up being the best possible testament to the simple quirkiness of the BiG.  Now the BiG is every bit a part of the Brewers brand as the H-Star is of the Astros and the bird head is of the Blue Jays.  There's just no going back now.

If it's cumbersome, that it's not bland...  Also, when was an athletic block M not bland?  As much as I appreciate the Milwaukee Braves and that they brought it home to Milwaukee in 1957, the Brewers don't need to inherit their M.  The Brewers wore a similar M in the 70's because they became a team so fast there wasn't a lot of time to create a look, hence them wearing lowercase letters and Pilot stripes.  Also, my argument is not to get rid of the BiG forever.  Because they brought it back in 2006 as a throwback, the BiG isn't going anywhere.

 

If it hasn't been clear, then that's on me.  My stance is that both M barley and BiG are good logos, which is controversial?  Fandom for one always overshadows the other because that's how fandom works.  Ball in glove is genius and classic.  M barley is quality typography (when you separate it from the context that it's a baseball logo, one of the hardest landscapes to be remotely different without ridicule) that calls back the aesthetic of beer labels and the actual name "Brewers."  BiG says the team's glory days, but M barley says "Brewers."  BiG is important because of the team, M barley is important because of the symbolism.

 

If the 2020 or 2021 Brewers run out the dugout wearing BiG full-time, fine.  I still like M barley more as a better aesthetic.

 

That being said, M barley is on the 2020 Brewers schedule, and brown and gold are on the 2020 Padres schedule.  M barley was worn more than the BiG every year it exists except 2016, when they introduced the navy and yellow alts.  I think the organization likes the M barley more on their uniforms.

[Gothamite]

24 minutes ago, packerfan21396 said:

As much as I appreciate the Milwaukee Braves and that they brought it home to Milwaukee in 1957, the Brewers don't need to inherit their M.  The Brewers wore a similar M in the 70's because they became a team so fast there wasn't a lot of time to create a look

 

I just want to correct the historical record, because while we can disagree on subjective things, what you have written here is factually incorrect. 

 

The Braves actually inherited their cap logo from the Brewers, who were wearing versions of it since the 1930s.  The navy-and-red cap with white M, later associated with the Braves, was first worn by the Brewers in 1948.

 

And when Bud Selig bought the Pilots and moved them to become the latest incarnation of the Brewers, it’s true that they had to improvise the uniforms.  But you know what they didn’t have to improvise?  The cap logo. That had been the plan all along.  When Bud first announced his plans for a new Brewers, when he the first pinstriped prototypes made in 1969, the cap logo was always the same. 

 

Now, you can certainly not like it.  But it was always a deliberate choice, not forced on them by the court calendar and 1970 schedule. 

[MilSox]

Not just that, but Milwaukee baseball teams wore some version of a Block M going back even further than that.  Here's the American Association's Brewers wearing one way back in 1913.


Let us also not forget this logo adorned Brewers dugout jackets through the end of the original BiG era.



The historical precedent for Milwaukee wearing a block M is comparable to Michigan.  Had they paired the barley with a block M, it would have rendered all arguments for the BiG being more historical null and void.