daveindc

Milwaukee Brewers 2020 Logo/Uniforms

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, itsmb8 said:

Sorry if im still upset, but this was SUCH an easy move and they really botched it IMO.  Just use this and be done with it, EVERYONE would be happy.

 

spacer.png

 

I'd be all for it but I'm sure they're not considering it since they wouldn't cash in as much with a "rebrand" featuring an existing hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this going the same route as the Detroit large D On field cap. It wasn’t well received and they went back to the smaller D. Let new era get some new sales for a year with the new BiG. By 2021 we’ll be back to what’s visually more appealing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, LMU said:

I hate the BiG as a concept.  The current look (minus the name and number fonts) and even the 90s Germanic look were both superior in that both actually did something with the name "Brewers" and couldn't also be used by the Montgomery Biscuits or the Montreal Bagels.

 

That said, consider me in the minority in that they actually cleaned up the things that irked me about the original. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've never 'gotten' this critique.

 

There's nothing about a wishbone C that couldn't also stand for Chicago or Cleveland (get it -- they also used it), let alone Chatanooga, Circus Clowns, Crabs, Crawfish or a gazillion other things.

 

The Pirates and Phillies? Switch the cap colors and they both work for the other team. Yankees and Mets? It's just an NY.

 

I'm not saying there isn't brand cache with the Cubs' C, the Yankees' NY and so on, but there is nothing in those logos that couldn't be used by anyone with the same initials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I've never 'gotten' this critique.

 

There's nothing about a wishbone C that couldn't also stand for Chicago or Cleveland (get it -- they also used it), let alone Chatanooga, Circus Clowns, Crabs, Crawfish or a gazillion other things.

 

The Pirates and Phillies? Switch the cap colors and they both work for the other team. Yankees and Mets? It's just an NY.

 

I'm not saying there isn't brand cache with the Cubs' C, the Yankees' NY and so on, but there is nothing in those logos that couldn't be used by anyone with the same initials.

 

I agree with sentiment exactly. This obsession nowadays that some people have with being entirely distinctive in every single facet of a logo is how we get abominations like the Rocket City Trash Pandas' raccoon/trashcan/rocket/calculator/letter R logo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way they redid the seams on the ball in the updated BIG looks to me like someone punched it in the mouth and it started bleeding.  They should have left the seams on the ball alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lafarge said:

 

I agree with sentiment exactly. This obsession nowadays that some people have with being entirely distinctive in every single facet of a logo is how we get abominations like the Rocket City Trash Pandas' raccoon/trashcan/rocket/calculator/letter R logo

 

Aight, now im pissed.  That Trash Pandas rebrand is GOLD and nobody can tell me otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

Since things like this are cyclic, 10 years from now there will be users on this board, or wherever discussions of this nature take place, clamoring for the M and wheat look again because it corresponds with the longest period of sustained success in team history. 

 

You can bet that would probably be me because I've always liked this current (now former?) set.  But if we're going to go with the BiG and stick with the BiG, use the correct version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, itsmb8 said:

But if we're going to go with the BiG and stick with the BiG, use the correct version.

 

On that we can agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BigRed618 said:

Made a quick mock-up of the new BiG

spacer.png

 

 

That honestly doesn't repulse me as much as the leaked version did. I could live with the seams if they were still yellow, but all the changes still amount to change for the sake of change.

 

Hopefully we'll only have to suffer through this for one year, but it's not quite as bad as it looked initially.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I've never 'gotten' this critique.

 

There's nothing about a wishbone C that couldn't also stand for Chicago or Cleveland (get it -- they also used it), let alone Chatanooga, Circus Clowns, Crabs, Crawfish or a gazillion other things.

 

The Pirates and Phillies? Switch the cap colors and they both work for the other team. Yankees and Mets? It's just an NY.

 

I'm not saying there isn't brand cache with the Cubs' C, the Yankees' NY and so on, but there is nothing in those logos that couldn't be used by anyone with the same initials.

 

...and this sentiment can be seen in how many high schools wear those logos with color tweaks. If even that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I've never 'gotten' this critique.

 

There's nothing about a wishbone C that couldn't also stand for Chicago or Cleveland (get it -- they also used it), let alone Chatanooga, Circus Clowns, Crabs, Crawfish or a gazillion other things.

 

The Pirates and Phillies? Switch the cap colors and they both work for the other team. Yankees and Mets? It's just an NY.

 

I'm not saying there isn't brand cache with the Cubs' C, the Yankees' NY and so on, but there is nothing in those logos that couldn't be used by anyone with the same initials.

The thing that gets me about the ball-in-glove logo is that it's a MB. There's an unspoken rule that a team's cap monogram should reflect the locale only, with the Rockies' CR logo getting a lot of flack (justifiably so) for including the nickname initial.

And yet the ball-in-glove gets a pass. Why? Is it because it's not just a MB, and therefore the inclusion of the nickname initial is justified as part of the larger image? That's all I've got.

 

I think another thing that bugs people about the ball-in-glove is that it's not just a monogram. It's an illustration. An illustration that has nothing to do with brewing. If it were just a block interlocked MB? Well people would complain about the nickname initial. If it were just a block M? No one would mind. That it's specifically an illustration and yet avoids brewing imagery is what gets to some people. That's why the current set has a small contingent of diehard defenders. It's objectively bad, but its willingness to include a wheat stock appeals to people who want to see the identity reflect the nickname.

 

Personally? I don't get the love for the ball-in-glove logo and I never have. My ideal Brewers cap logo is a block M over a stock of wheat. I think that accomplishes having both a classic baseball look and one that pays homage to the nickname. Ideally this would be in royal blue and athletic gold.

 

That being said, the ball-in-glove seems to be the runaway favourite of the team. So yeah. It's probably for the best that they adopt it full time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My love for that Ball in Glove dates back to my earliest memories. When I was like 4 or 5, I had a relative who frequently wore Brewers gear and I just remember that being the team's logo in home videos and old pictures, but by the time I was a coherent kid at like 8, they had that Motre Bame disaster and I was disappointed. The blue and yellow was cool and the glove was cool, I just kept remembering the glove. Then as I got older, I learned the logo wasn't just a glove, it was the initials MB and that's when my love for it shot through the roof.  It's simple and genius and more importantly it looks awesome on hats. I was a fan of the wheat look in the beginning but over time it wore out it's welcome and the fact the team sucked didn't help it either.

 

I'm going to sound like a damn fool but I definitely got my wallet ready for 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never knew why the Brewers went Motre Bame in 1994-1997. Should have have stayed with Royal Blue and Gold. Now if only they could get a beer barrel for Bernie to slide into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThunderCeltic said:

 Never knew why the Brewers went Motre Bame in 1994-1997. Should have have stayed with Royal Blue and Gold.

 

Every team that wore royal blue and gold abandoned it about that time.  The Rams, Mariners, Brewers, Warriors, Sabres, everybody moved to darker tones so the jerseys could pair better with khakis from the Gap.   That was the style at the time, and the Brewers weren’t immune.  Fortunately the pendulum is swinging back, and people aren’t afraid of bright, vivid colors any more. 

 

2 minutes ago, ThunderCeltic said:

Now if only they could get a beer barrel for Bernie to slide into.

 

From your mouth to Mark Attanasio’s ears. 😁

Share this post


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

The thing that gets me about the ball-in-glove logo is that it's a MB. There's an unspoken rule that a team's cap monogram should reflect the locale only, with the Rockies' CR logo getting a lot of flack (justifiably so) for including the nickname initial.

 

I subscribe to the general principle that a letter logo should indicate the locality only or the nickname only, but not both. For that reason, I was very uncomfortable with the Rockies' monogram.

 

But I would like to point out that neither the Brewers nor the Rockies invented this, as the Los Angeles Angels converted the LA on their caps to a CA when they moved to Anaheim and changed their name to California Angels.

 

67TOPPS019A.jpg

 

And then the Texas Rangers used a TR logo in the mid-1980s.

 

51o1cKz1ANL._SX342_.jpg

 

Though they didn't put that logo on their caps.

 

Anyway, I give the Brewers' ball-in-glove logo a pass, because, even though thar logo has initials for both the locality and the nickname, it's just such a brilliant piece of design that is full of personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh god how I wish and hope that those seams on the ball are not red! If you’re gonna tweak and make it “new”...at least don’t put an attention grabbing eyesore of the red seams sticking out like a sore thumb and smacking you right in the face whenever you look at it reminding you of how different it is. I could grow to like the new logo, and actually am in the minority where it’s not too big of a deal for me and glad to see the glove return (although truly different)...but that red 🤦🏻‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, clr2420 said:

oh god how I wish and hope that those seams on the ball are not red! If you’re gonna tweak and make it “new”...at least don’t put an attention grabbing eyesore of the red seams sticking out like a sore thumb and smacking you right in the face whenever you look at it reminding you of how different it is. I could grow to like the new logo, and actually am in the minority where it’s not too big of a deal for me and glad to see the glove return (although truly different)...but that red 🤦🏻‍♂️

 

My color picker in my image editing program doesn't pick up any red at all in the logo, it's just a trick of the image artifacts so need to worry.

 

However, the previous logo did have red seams on the ball, so I would sorta understand if they felt the need to shove that useless color in there. I didn't have much of a problem with it anyways because it seemed to blend with the surrounding colors well enough.

 

 

ophgazfdzfdkeugut9bdw3iyz.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are we getting this red seam thing from? I'm not seeing that in the new logo.

Share this post


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

The thing that gets me about the ball-in-glove logo is that it's a MB. There's an unspoken rule that a team's cap monogram should reflect the locale only, with the Rockies' CR logo getting a lot of flack (justifiably so) for including the nickname initial.

And yet the ball-in-glove gets a pass. Why? Is it because it's not just a MB, and therefore the inclusion of the nickname initial is justified as part of the larger image? That's all I've got.

 

I think another thing that bugs people about the ball-in-glove is that it's not just a monogram. It's an illustration. An illustration that has nothing to do with brewing. If it were just a block interlocked MB? Well people would complain about the nickname initial. If it were just a block M? No one would mind. That it's specifically an illustration and yet avoids brewing imagery is what gets to some people. That's why the current set has a small contingent of diehard defenders. It's objectively bad, but its willingness to include a wheat stock appeals to people who want to see the identity reflect the nickname.

 

Personally? I don't get the love for the ball-in-glove logo and I never have. My ideal Brewers cap logo is a block M over a stock of wheat. I think that accomplishes having both a classic baseball look and one that pays homage to the nickname. Ideally this would be in royal blue and athletic gold.

 

That being said, the ball-in-glove seems to be the runaway favourite of the team. So yeah. It's probably for the best that they adopt it full time.

Then why do the Cubs get a pass? I understand that the C COULD stand for Chicago, but their damn logo says C ubs. The C most certainly is indicative of Cubs, not Chicago.

 

Lesser cases could be made for both the Phillies and Pirates, who don't use a monogram that describes their cities, rather they say Philliles and Pirates in the same characters as their cap logo.

 

Just because it COULD BE the location on the cap doesn't mean that it is.

Share this post


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

The thing that gets me about the ball-in-glove logo is that it's a MB. There's an unspoken rule that a team's cap monogram should reflect the locale only, with the Rockies' CR logo getting a lot of flack (justifiably so) for including the nickname initial.

And yet the ball-in-glove gets a pass. Why? Is it because it's not just a MB, and therefore the inclusion of the nickname initial is justified as part of the larger image? That's all I've got.

 

I think another thing that bugs people about the ball-in-glove is that it's not just a monogram. It's an illustration. An illustration that has nothing to do with brewing. If it were just a block interlocked MB? Well people would complain about the nickname initial. If it were just a block M? No one would mind. That it's specifically an illustration and yet avoids brewing imagery is what gets to some people. That's why the current set has a small contingent of diehard defenders. It's objectively bad, but its willingness to include a wheat stock appeals to people who want to see the identity reflect the nickname.

 

Personally? I don't get the love for the ball-in-glove logo and I never have. My ideal Brewers cap logo is a block M over a stock of wheat. I think that accomplishes having both a classic baseball look and one that pays homage to the nickname. Ideally this would be in royal blue and athletic gold.

 

That being said, the ball-in-glove seems to be the runaway favourite of the team. So yeah. It's probably for the best that they adopt it full time.

 

Maybe I haven't really been paying attention during the past 15 years on this message board, but this is literally the first time I've ever heard of this "unspoken rule." (That might just be on me, by the way. Don't take it as a criticism.) That said, I can't fathom why it matters. It seems like such an arbitrary rule.

 

And if this is the letter(s) of the law (see what I did there?), do the Twins get a pass because the TC represents both a locale AND the nickname of the team? So many questions.

 

Anyway, as for the ball-in-glove issue, there are some logos that earn the status as classics because of what it represents to a certain class of fans. Logos are nostalgia machines, and while the ball-in-glove says absolutely nothing in particular about Milwaukee or the brewing industry, it still manages to evoke "Brewers" to its fanbase far better than any of its successors. Honestly, that's a sign of a good brand — with just one look, you know what it represents. It doesn't need to hit you over the head with a frosty beer mug.

 

So while our conventional wisdom might lead us to question what the logo has to do with a brewer, at some point the logo just BECAME the team's identity. I'm fine with that. 

 

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.