Milwaukee Brewers 2020 Logo/Uniforms

[bowld]

10 minutes ago, el_gmac said:

I think removing the blue background from the ball it will look much better

Tried it with a white ball but the yellow barley was hard to read against white 

[habsfan1]

8 hours ago, bowld said:

 

12 minutes ago, el_gmac said:

I think removing the blue background from the ball it will look much better

 

Agreed.

[Survival79]

55 minutes ago, bowld said:

Tried it with a white ball but the yellow barley was hard to read against white 

 

What about a white ball with blue barley?

[Megildur]

I've been following this thread for awhile, figured it's about time to throw in some thoughts of my own. My reaction to the release of the Brewers' redesign was mixed. While I like the new look in general and I think it's a commendable move by the Milwaukee organization to connect with what their fans want, it feels a bit boring. Now, boring isn't necessarily bad. The D-Backs and Marlins in recent years have faced backlash when they've tried to not fit into the "traditional" look, the D-Backs with their snakeskin pattern and the Marlins with making their primary (or most-used) color black and their wonky scripts with drop shadows. With that in mind, I can see why the Brewers followed the trend that has worked recently -- basing their identity on past looks. The thing that struck me when I first saw the leaked logo via the Topps card was the similarity to the Astros logo, which was released before the 2013 season. Like the Astros, the Brewers' colors and word marks are remarkably similar to what they've had before. The Brewers former cap logo and primary logo, the BiG, which many have discussed in this thread, had slight alterations made and then smacked right in the middle of the new primary logo, as well as on the new caps. The Astros took a former cap logo of theirs and did the same, putting it in the middle of a roundel and then on caps. I made this somewhat shoddy infographic to illustrate my points.

 

 

Basically, it feels boring that the Brewers did this because the Astros already did something very similar! The roundels even look rather similar, like someone followed a template on how to take an old logo and make it "new" by adding a bevel or messing around with lines and then putting it in a couple circles. So anyways, I'm disappointed because I would've liked to see the Brewers try to be a bit more original, rather than recycling and slightly changing what they had decades ago. The new font is a step in the direction, as well as the BarleyBall, but it feels too much like they copied the Astros strategy (though hopefully not their sign-stealing strategies...) and didn't look into a proper, unique redesign.

 

And lastly, one last gripe! I wish they had consistent striping throughout the set of uniforms and found a way to either involve the royal blue more or get rid of it entirely. Oh, and powder blue throwbacks.

 

EDIT: I just realized that "2020-now" is a bit confusing since it's not actually 2020 yet...

[phutmasterflex]

The fact that none of the stripes of any of the jersey sleeves match make this set hard for me to like. The home and road at least should have the same ones. 

 

[Lights Out]

The Astros comparison is actually perfect. Just to add to that comparison: I remember people being really annoyed with the bevel on the Astros' star when the rebrand was first unveiled, much like how people are annoyed by the minor tweaks to the Ball in Glove now. And - potentially unpopular opinion - both teams' had their best identities in the '90s, while their current brands are bland, inoffensive "classic" looks that fail to distinguish them from the crowd.

[Megildur]

41 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

The Astros comparison is actually perfect. Just to add to that comparison: I remember people being really annoyed with the bevel on the Astros' star when the rebrand was first unveiled, much like how people are annoyed by the minor tweaks to the Ball in Glove now. And - potentially unpopular opinion - both teams' had their best identities in the '90s, while their current brands are bland, inoffensive "classic" looks that fail to distinguish them from the crowd.

Great points, Lights Out. I think it's perfectly acceptable and understandable to want the old looks -- they're classic looks for a reason. Teams with classic looks, like the Red Sox and Yankees, are amazing identities, yet these attempts to create or re-create classic looks don't sit well with me. I'd prefer to see them as throwbacks, rather than old looks being slightly changed and advertised as "new" identities. I'd love to see looks that are new and interesting because of how they stand out, rather than ones that just fit into "the crowd," as you say. Leave the classic looks to the teams that have had classic looks for decades uninterrupted and take the opportunity to create something new to break out of the mold.

 

I also recognize that the Marlins rebrand didn't go over well with me and they went down a completely new path with their new identity last season, but I enjoyed the attempt by the D-Backs with their snakeskin pattern (which seems to be an unpopular opinion, but whatever). Yet, rebranding through modifying past looks is getting overdone. The Orioles did it with the cartoon logo, the Blue Jays did it the best with their logo and word marks (which I think the Astros and Brewers saw and wanted to emulate), but now the Astros and Brewers have taken it to an extreme. In the era of "Let the kids play," let's emphasize teal for the D-Backs, a brighter purple for the Rockies, something more daring for the Rays, a more colorful look for the Mariners... I don't know, maybe I'm getting carried away now, but my point is that I want new looks, not recycled logos from the 70s and 80s. 

[Ray Lankford]

5 hours ago, Lights Out said:

The Astros comparison is actually perfect. Just to add to that comparison: I remember people being really annoyed with the bevel on the Astros' star when the rebrand was first unveiled, much like how people are annoyed by the minor tweaks to the Ball in Glove now. And - potentially unpopular opinion - both teams' had their best identities in the '90s, while their current brands are bland, inoffensive "classic" looks that fail to distinguish them from the crowd.

No one else wears blue and yellow so the Brewers definitely stick out.

[SFGiants58]

The more I think about it, both the Astros and the Brewers feel like a failure to understand New Historicism. They tried to emulate the old looks, but ultimately missed a lot of what made those designs work in the time period. The Astros branded around the slab-serif and ultimately made their design less colorful (when "colorful" was a big point of what the Astros' brand would become in the '60s-'80s), while the Brewers got too wrapped up in trying to do a bunch of designs that ultimately kind of muddle the whole project. They're still good, but nowhere near as good as they could be. 

 

5 hours ago, Megildur said:

Great points, Lights Out. I think it's perfectly acceptable and understandable to want the old looks -- they're classic looks for a reason. Teams with classic looks, like the Red Sox and Yankees, are amazing identities, yet these attempts to create or re-create classic looks don't sit well with me. I'd prefer to see them as throwbacks, rather than old looks being slightly changed and advertised as "new" identities. I'd love to see looks that are new and interesting because of how they stand out, rather than ones that just fit into "the crowd," as you say. Leave the classic looks to the teams that have had classic looks for decades uninterrupted and take the opportunity to create something new to break out of the mold.

 

I beg to differ. I'd like for the teams to look like themselves again. The Astros shouldn't have left navy and orange behind and the Brewers shouldn't have dropped yellow-gold. Would you have said the same about the Blue Jays, or have they always been "different" enough to work.

 

While this Brewers redesign carries through a lot of the hallmarks of the Astros redesign and has some similar faults, I'd argue that the Brewers were a lot more daring in their collection of logos, use of that "Milwaukee" script, and in avoiding the royal/yellow color scheme. It might not have landed with some people, but it's different. 

 

5 hours ago, Megildur said:

I also recognize that the Marlins rebrand didn't go over well with me and they went down a completely new path with their new identity last season, but I enjoyed the attempt by the D-Backs with their snakeskin pattern (which seems to be an unpopular opinion, but whatever).

 

If I'm being honest, I kind of did too. I'm glad they rolled it back, but it was worth it to "put it out there."

 

5 hours ago, Megildur said:

Yet, rebranding through modifying past looks is getting overdone. The Orioles did it with the cartoon logo, the Blue Jays did it the best with their logo and word marks (which I think the Astros and Brewers saw and wanted to emulate), but now the Astros and Brewers have taken it to an extreme.

 

Again, I'd rather teams look like themselves again than continue experimenting and screwing up. We don't want another Canucks situation here. The Vancouver Canucks school of branding is one of the worst out there.

 

5 hours ago, Megildur said:

In the era of "Let the kids play," let's emphasize teal for the D-Backs, a brighter purple for the Rockies, something more daring for the Rays, a more colorful look for the Mariners... I don't know, maybe I'm getting carried away now, but my point is that I want new looks, not recycled logos from the 70s and 80s. 

 

While that's a fair statement, I beg to differ with the old looks. It's restoring teams as they should look, not going back to ugly '90s designs (the '90s Astros are festering garbage and the Brewers '90s design is OK - despite lacking any brand equity because the team was absolute trash while they wore it). The "kids" like retro stuff in a lot of their media, why not in their sports designs? You are spot on about the other teams, except I'd argue the Rockies should be "more purple," not "brighter purple." 

 

If we're looking at the whole design? I can see that the Brewers maybe played it too safe. They have a lot of potential for a solid design, but they've tried to please too many people and it is less than it could be. It's still good, but less than it could be. 

 

I must agree about the BiG being very much a '70s creation. Heck, I used it for a "What if the Braves stayed in Milwaukee?" concept.

 

 

I'm not a big fan of either version, but I understand that (much like the H-Star) it has brand equity. People see it in their local market and they know what it is and what it represents. That's something even a non-fan can understand. That's a big reason why people were upset with the changes to the BiG, which are a bit more substantial that the bevels on the H-Star (they didn't even fix the H-Star's biggest problem - looking good on a white background). 

 

If it were up to me, I'd have kept the retro alternates (albeit adding an Owgust Barrleman patch and using the '90-'93 cursive script) and have made something that combines the '00-'19 design with classic beer label design and influences from the pre-1953 Brewers and Milwaukee Braves (because let's be frank, the Braves never should have moved to Atlanta). I've done concepts like this before and I think I'd appreciate that more "timeless" direction more than a BiG revival that slightly misses the point.

 

So, @Megildur, I'm happy with the result of the Brewers' redesign. However, I think they could have done a lot better and come up with a design that's less a "neo-retro, but slightly misses the point" look.

[Old School Fool]

My honest opinion of the BIG logo falls into two things:

 

1. When you actually pay attention you can see that the logo is dated. It's dated in a way where it still looks good but you see it and you go "that's from back in the day" and I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. I love the logo, but it's clear going back to the same old thing would have been a cop out. Which brings me to my second point.

 

2. Going back to old stuff shouldn't really be championed as much as it is on this board. Do I like old logos and uniforms? I sure do but I also would be completely underwhelmed if something just came back with no modifications or anything. Think about it, what the hell would the point be if the Brewers just reverted to their exact 1982 look with no changes? That's not looking towards the future, that's just cosplaying as a team that is better than them. It's cheap. There are exceptions to my rule here of old logos, but those old logos (Yankees, Lakers, Red Sox) have been around forever without a single change, but I feel like that falls into "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" category and that's where we get to Gothamite and others' points. Was it broken? In my opinion, a little bit, but it still passed the cool test.

 

Overall I understand and respect Gothamite and others' opinions on the logo, they lived through that era and hold fond memories of it, however, I also understand why that logo got changed. I'm just glad the logo is back. Could be worse, could be something that looks like a penis or whatever wacky problems happen in design these days.

[packerfan21396]

22 hours ago, 8BW14 said:

This looks extremely legit, but what's the source on this? (just curious)

[CLEstones]

Initial thoughts:

 

• The roundel logo needs another interior circle, separating the logo from the text.
• I really like the different shades of blue.
• The jerseys are just too inconsistent... there is no uniformity to them
  • The cream has 2 thick stripes at the very bottom of the sleeve, with nothing around the collar.
  • The blue jersey has single piping, offset from the bottom of the sleeve, and offset from the collar and down the front.
  • Then they have pinstripes.
  • Then the gray jersey has 3 stripes, offset from the bottom of the sleeve, with no piping around the collar or down the front.
• I like the new fonts and wordmarks
  • A pet peeve of mine is to always have a CITY and NICKNAME jersey in both the block letters AND a script.
  • I wish the home cream had a Brewers script across the front.
• Ball in glove logo is a nice update with the baseball stitches.
• Wisconsin logo is meh, does nothing for me.
• The baseball with the barley leaves is a perfect interpretation.  I love when basketball and baseball teams incorporate the stitching into logos.
• The brewer logo is fine.  Doesn't do much for me.  Reminds me of a minor league logo.

[OnWis97]

9 hours ago, Lights Out said:

The Astros comparison is actually perfect. Just to add to that comparison: I remember people being really annoyed with the bevel on the Astros' star when the rebrand was first unveiled, much like how people are annoyed by the minor tweaks to the Ball in Glove now. And - potentially unpopular opinion - both teams' had their best identities in the '90s, while their current brands are bland, inoffensive "classic" looks that fail to distinguish them from the crowd.

I am with you on the Brewers...though that was in my mind a very “classic” design.  But few looks strike me as more bland than that Astros look.  To me that was the epitome of soulless.

 

In any case, I am totally with SFGiants; both teams (along with the Padres) have shut the door on the question of what their identities actually are.  I value that far more than I worry about the nitpicks.  And if the Astros decide to get more colorful some day, they can do so without raising identity questions.  Neither team is the Canucks, which is great.

 

Then again most NBA teams are the Canucks week-to-week and the league is doing just fine.

[8BW14]

5 minutes ago, packerfan21396 said:

This looks extremely legit, but what's the source on this? (just curious)

Yeaterday’s Uni Watch blog post

[L10nheart404]

1 hour ago, Old School Fool said:

My honest opinion of the BIG logo falls into two things:

 

1. When you actually pay attention you can see that the logo is dated. It's dated in a way where it still looks good but you see it and you go "that's from back in the day" and I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. I love the logo, but it's clear going back to the same old thing would have been a cop out. Which brings me to my second point.

 

2. Going back to old stuff shouldn't really be championed as much as it is on this board. Do I like old logos and uniforms? I sure do but I also would be completely underwhelmed if something just came back with no modifications or anything. Think about it, what the hell would the point be if the Brewers just reverted to their exact 1982 look with no changes? That's not looking towards the future, that's just cosplaying as a team that is better than them. It's cheap. There are exceptions to my rule here of old logos, but those old logos (Yankees, Lakers, Red Sox) have been around forever without a single change, but I feel like that falls into "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" category and that's where we get to Gothamite and others' points. Was it broken? In my opinion, a little bit, but it still passed the cool test.

 

Overall I understand and respect Gothamite and others' opinions on the logo, they lived through that era and hold fond memories of it, however, I also understand why that logo got changed. I'm just glad the logo is back. Could be worse, could be something that looks like a penis or whatever wacky problems happen in design these days.

Perfectly stated.

[SilverBullet1929]

Now that I think about it is the cream jersey supposedly connecting to the 1970 uniforms a bit off? If you compare the 1970 sleeve stripes to the new one it's not that similar. The new stripes are actually closer to the 1972 uniforms and there's also no front numbers on the 1970 uniforms but there is in 1972...

 

This is 1970...

 

This is 1972...

[mjd77]

After letting this sink in for a couple days, I'm definitely ok with the entire overall package.  It is a HUGE upgrade over what they had.  My only nitpick issue is I think the sleeve striping on the cream jersey should have been used on the gray and blue jerseys to bring more cohesiveness across the whole set.  Honestly, I think the pinstripe set would have looked better in cream as well.

[SilverBullet1929]

Didn't realize it until someone said it here but the road gray jersey is very similar in appearance to the previous road gray albeit with block letters instead of a wordmark. If they really wanna say that these new uniforms are meant to call back to previous uniforms then I guess it's nice to find this one more connection.

[mjd77]

39 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Didn't realize it until someone said it here but the road gray jersey is very similar in appearance to the previous road gray albeit with block letters instead of a wordmark. If they really wanna say that these new uniforms are meant to call back to previous uniforms then I guess it's nice to find this one more connection.

 

That gray one actually reminds me of the Motre Bame set.  The lettering actually doesn't look that much different between the 2.

[MilSox]

13 hours ago, Lights Out said:

The Astros comparison is actually perfect. Just to add to that comparison: I remember people being really annoyed with the bevel on the Astros' star when the rebrand was first unveiled, much like how people are annoyed by the minor tweaks to the Ball in Glove now. And - potentially unpopular opinion - both teams' had their best identities in the '90s, while their current brands are bland, inoffensive "classic" looks that fail to distinguish them from the crowd.

Are we ignoring how irritatingly similar the Brewers and Astros looked after their 1994 rebrands?