Best and Worst Logo Recolorings

[oldschoolvikings]

7 hours ago, the admiral said:

They're both terrible and compromise the integrity of the original design. Losing the motion lines on the right makes the script appear off-balance. Why do both scripts melt into the roundel? Why would the sky ever be goldenrod?

 

Not to defend that logo, but...

 

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

 

The first one wasn't great by any means, but it was much better than the Papa Smurf logo that they switched to

[BeerGuyJordan]

On 5/6/2019 at 8:05 PM, greyraven8 said:

     

 

downgrade.

The AHL has a few bad ones in recent years, and all of them come down to forcing teams into affiliate colors: Moose, IceCaps, Condors come to mind.

[B-Rich]

16 hours ago, mafiaman said:

 

I’ll see you cool cats over in “unpopular opinions” because I like the old New Orleans Jazz colored version of the Utah Jazz logo as opposed to the baby blue/navy blue/purple version.

 But it's not the "old New Orleans Jazz colored version of the Utah Jazz logo"

 

The New Orleans Jazz were purple gold and green.  The Utah Jazz are now navy, dark green and dark yellow:

 

[mafiaman]

7 hours ago, B-Rich said:

 But it's not the "old New Orleans Jazz colored version of the Utah Jazz logo"

 

The New Orleans Jazz were purple gold and green.  The Utah Jazz are now navy, dark green and dark yellow:

 

It’s ballpark close enough, but you are definitely correct.  That Utah Jazz logo would definitely look better with the original New Orleans colors.

[GMW79]

11 hours ago, mafiaman said:

It’s ballpark close enough, but you are definitely correct.  That Utah Jazz logo would definitely look better with the original New Orleans colors.

 

I'd be interested in seeing a mock up, but personally, I've moved on from the New Orleans colors (which look great on the Pelican's current City jersey, by the way). The Jazz wearing throwbacks this year is fun, but making the team even more "Utah" is why I absolutely loved the mid-90's change, even if teal/purple was overdone at the time. I do like green, and gold being added back into the identity almost 10 years ago, but that's why I think I actually like navy better than purple (unless they go back to the mountain set or some thing similar) -- it's still an identity they formed in Utah. I'll never support "giving the Jazz name back" to New Orleans (unless Utah gets the Raptors!), but let them "have" the Mardi Gras colors. It's a good combo, but should be used somewhere where it can still be relevant (Yes, I know the same argument gone be made about the name, but don't get me started).

 

TL;DR: Purple/Green/Yellow should be a Pelicans thing.

[mattr1198]

On 5/6/2019 at 8:52 PM, Dolphins Dynasty said:

Anyway, for the topic itself.

 

     

 

While I understand the intentions behind this happening, the metallic gold looked great with this logo... and now it looks like an unfinished concept.

Apparently this is likely just going to be a placeholder logo until their full rebrand in 2020. Still no clue why they didn't just keep the old logo. Definitely agree it feels unfinished and that color scheme screams bland.

[mattr1198]

Definitely agree with some of your examples (namely the Rams one), but here are some more bad recolors that I just remembered...

to(A huge product of the "edgy" 90s. Looks so awful in hindsight.)

 

to(I know the old one is still used, but can't believe they even fathomed that ugly Aqua being included in their new scheme)

 

to (I know it's a bit more of a refresh than a recolor, but my god the old purple pops so much more than the dull current one)

[GMW79]

I disagree with you about the Oilers -- I like both. I'm totally with you on the D-backs and Suns (although I do prefer the thinner lines on the ball in the second version).

[Dynasty]

On 5/8/2019 at 9:21 AM, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

The first one wasn't great by any means, but it was much better than the Papa Smurf logo that they switched to

 

That was bad. The color change itself tells me they no longer care for the "Wizards" identity anymore... which leads me to question why it's still the team name.

[_DietDrPepper_]

On 5/8/2019 at 9:21 AM, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

The first one wasn't great by any means, but it was much better than the Papa Smurf logo that they switched to

I’m sorry but I can’t not like that logo. 100 times better than their current words around a ball logo 

[daniel75]

On 5/8/2019 at 9:21 AM, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

The first one wasn't great by any means, but it was much better than the Papa Smurf logo that they switched to

Yikes those are bad logos.

[mattr1198]

7 hours ago, BellaSpurs said:

I’m sorry but I can’t not like that logo. 100 times better than their current words around a ball logo 

True. The current logo screams bland and unrelated, while this one is a bit more exciting. I know some people say it's a "wand" as the Washington Monument. I call 100% BS on that; it's just the monument. Not great colors to begin with either.

[jaha32]

23 hours ago, mattr1198 said:

Apparently this is likely just going to be a placeholder logo until their full rebrand in 2020. Still no clue why they didn't just keep the old logo. Definitely agree it feels unfinished and that color scheme screams bland.

 

It’s not just the loss of gold that makes this a downgrade, it’s that they added an extra thin blue outline which then leads to an extra white outline when placed on blue backgrounds. If you start at the interior blue area (around the eye and move right) the colors switch from blue to thin white highlight to thin blue line (and that should be the end of it but then it continues) to white line, blue line, white line. That’s six lines in one small space. When shrunk down as it usually is on TV, it looks dizzying. 

 

 

[BurdBranding]

On 5/13/2019 at 10:39 PM, mattr1198 said:

Definitely agree with some of your examples (namely the Rams one), but here are some more bad recolors that I just remembered...

to(A huge product of the "edgy" 90s. Looks so awful in hindsight.)

 

to(I know the old one is still used, but can't believe they even fathomed that ugly Aqua being included in their new scheme)

 

to (I know it's a bit more of a refresh than a recolor, but my god the old purple pops so much more than the dull current one)

Don’t know why the D backs would use turquoise? The biggest pride of Arizona when it comes to stones? The best selling jewelry for snow birds that frequent the state trying to look different and foreign when they head back to the Midwest after their summer here to show off to their friends?  All jokes aside. Yea it is awful but with good intentions. With more teams trying to represent their state/region through their identity I feel like the D backs took a shot in the dark to try relating to their market and pay homage to their state. They failed miserably. But they either have to go all in with their previous look or keep it the same, there is no even ground for the two.

[pelicanfan]

On 5/8/2019 at 11:19 PM, mafiaman said:

It’s ballpark close enough, but you are definitely correct.  That Utah Jazz logo would definitely look better with the original New Orleans colors.

Please no. The colors of the New Orleans Jazz are colors of Mardi Gras which has been a cultural thing of New Orleans for generations before basketball even existed. If anything the pelicans should be the ones to wear purple green and gold

[VancouverFan69]

On 5/6/2019 at 3:54 PM, mattr1198 said:

Worst

 

to (The colors went from actually from the jerseys/scheme to not representative of the team colors AT ALL)

 

to (The red just pops so much more than that ugly maroon color)

 

There are definitely more out there. Want to hear your opinions!

 

I've despised the Canucks' Orca ever since the former Orca Bay ownership shoved their corporate identity onto the Canucks brand, however the logo looked a lot better in the original colours which were a bland 90's look. Now, the Orca just takes up space on the Canucks' beautiful royal blue and green look with its corporate two-tone blue and silver appearance. Definitely agree here.

 

The Phillies' classic P looks great in both red and maroon. I prefer the maroon because red is very common and no other MLB team wears maroon as a primary colour. It's a colour the Phillies can own like the Athletics own green.

[mattr1198]

37 minutes ago, VancouverFan69 said:

I've despised the Canucks' Orca ever since the former Orca Bay ownership shoved their corporate identity onto the Canucks brand, however the logo looked a lot better in the original colours which were a bland 90's look. Now, the Orca just takes up space on the Canucks' beautiful royal blue and green look with its corporate two-tone blue and silver appearance. Definitely agree here.

I think the Canucks may be the only team in all of professional sports in which all the colors on their logo are not the primary nor secondary colors for the team (in this case royal blue and green).

[Denver_The_Sinaloa]

On 5/13/2019 at 10:39 PM, mattr1198 said:

Definitely agree with some of your examples (namely the Rams one), but here are some more bad recolors that I just remembered...

to(A huge product of the "edgy" 90s. Looks so awful in hindsight.)

 

to(I know the old one is still used, but can't believe they even fathomed that ugly Aqua being included in their new scheme)

 

to (I know it's a bit more of a refresh than a recolor, but my god the old purple pops so much more than the dull current one)

i disagree with the diamondbacks one. i think it’s a solid addition. they just need to flesh out the logo. adding a line of teal doesn’t cut it