Milwaukee Brewers 2020 Logo/Uniforms

[AndrewMLind]

I love the Ball In Glove as a nostalgic throwback look, but I've long appreciated the Brewers' use of barley in their logo(s).

[FiddySicks]

35 minutes ago, AndrewMLind said:

I love the Ball In Glove as a nostalgic throwback look, but I've long appreciated the Brewers' use of barley in their logo(s).

 

I've always thought the Brewers could absolutely "have it both ways" when it comes to their identity. I think that the current set would translate much more effectively in royal and yellow, and the BiG logo would lend itself to being a fantastic secondary mark that's used as a sleeve patch. They could even use that logo on an alternate cap and it would still tie in really nicely. Objectively, while the BiG logo is great, it's still rater generic and could be used for just about any team with the MB initials (As has been stated here before). That's also one of it's strengths, though. The logo being somewhat generic gives it a lot of flexibility. 

 

This is what I'd like to see the Brewers do: 

 

Just a touch darker than royal (but not quite navy) and yellow

 

The current cap logo with the M modified to be more of a block M shape (The block M could even be a nice nod to the Milwaukee Braves days)

 

A more block style font in general. I see where they were going with the Germanic Miller Lite style font and TNR numbers, but it's just too much. Simpler is better in this case. 

 

BiG logo used as the permanent sleeve patch. Alt cap with the BiG logo. 

 

No pinstripes. That's the one thing from the BiG era I never really liked. 

 

Barrel Man used as a non uniform logo. He's cool, no doubt, but the BiG logo just works a lot better as a secondary mark than the Barrel Man. They could still use him without trying to cram him on the uniforms (Like they currently do) 

[Survival79]

2 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

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

 

On 10/29/2019 at 1:26 PM, Survival79 said:

I'm sure it's just the quality of the image and whatever Chris did to enhance it, but those stitches sure do look a little red.

 

 

The color of the seams is definitely different than the ball's yellow outline.

 

But, like I said, it's probably just the quality of the image and whatever Chris did to enhance it.

[Gothamite]

Here's another view of the card.

 

 

And yes, the seams do appear to be different from the gold.  Otherwise they'd blend in with the ball at this size.

[SilverBullet1929]

I still see them as the same yellow/gold color of the outside. There's obviously a distortion going on but I think they only look different because the seams blend with the white and the outside blends with the darker blue but I still see yellow in both, definitely not red.

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

I love the Ball In Glove as a nostalgic throwback look, but I've long appreciated the Brewers' use of barley in their logo(s).

 

I loved the idea of it, but always hated the execution.

[Brave-Bird 08]

The only thing I've not liked about the Brewers' current brand is the numbers. If they could tweak those to be fuller, more sporty, then it would be perfect. The colors are perfect -- the beige looks like beer - and the brand feels like a beer brand. The ball and glove is clever, but generic and 70s and that's where it belongs. 

[Tremperbball10]

 

4 things I'm hoping for from new uniforms

 

-Pinstripes at home

-Yellow Alternate jersey

-A Barrelman alternate hat to go with the yellow jerseys

- Cream colored alternate home uniform

[tBBP]

Obviously, fans and Milwaukeeans have spoken, and the team's choice in branding going forward reflects that. That said, as an outsider, I'm kinda where @Bucfan56 is regarding the BiG logo (or at least the original version of it)...its great for what it is, but I much prefer an identity that uniquely speaks to either the team locale or nickname, and the current-soon-to-be-former identity definitely accomplished that.  However, I also agree that in many instances, "less is best", so in that vein, I can see why they're going away from the current script stuff. Actually, now that I think about it, IF they could've built a simpler identity package based around an M and some barely, that alone might've sufficed without the need for the current scripts (or Times New Roman...yikes!). That would've also afforded them the versatility to throw back to the Milwaukee Braves days, as @Bucfan56 also alluded to. (That was a great point, by the way.)

 

As a supporting font for like cap logo/number font, I personally would like to see them resurrect something along the lines of the Motre Bame era fonts--only without the extra outlines. But I doubt that happens, so...anyways, we'll see what happens with this.

 

(And is it just me or does it appear to anyone else that leaked logo has two rings of royal blue in it? I don't know that I'd like to see them try to shove a third color into their navy and [now] athletic gold. But again, we'll see what happens with this.

[Gothamite]

1 minute ago, Tremperbball10 said:

4 things I'm hoping for from new uniforms

 

-Pinstripes at home

-Yellow Alternate jersey

-A Barrelman alternate hat to go with the yellow jerseys

- Cream colored alternate home uniform

 

If I were a betting man, I would say the first one is a sure thing.  After that, each one gets significantly less likely.

[MilSox]

19 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.

My tastes in baseball uniforms skew traditional more often than they don't.  But the city monogram + nickname on white + city name on gray formula has its limitations.  The White Sox wore their first sock logo and the word "Sox" on their cap years before they ever wore a "C."  Even now they wouldn't feel on brand with a C, and this is a club with 19th century roots.

That's not the case with the Brewers.  That wave of expansion clubs were only able to build their brand by doing things differently.... Astros Tequila Sunrise, Montreal's elb, Taco Bell Padres, Disco Blue Jays, the BiG, powder blue, etc.  Were some of these things initially presented in a garish and impractical fashion?  You bet.  But the "Baseball Uniforms 101" style of makeovers most of these teams received in the 90s failed to catch on for a reason. 

Mostly, I love this trend of such teams finding more tasteful ways to evolve their "coming of age" brand.  Variety is good.  Let the Yankees and Dodgers look like the Yankees and Dodgers.  

[IceCap]

11 minutes ago, NicDB said:

That's not the case with the Brewers.  That wave of expansion clubs were only able to build their brand by doing things differently.... Astros Tequila Sunrise, Montreal's elb, Taco Bell Padres, Disco Blue Jays, the BiG, powder blue, etc.  Were some of these things initially presented in a garish and impractical fashion?  You bet.  But the "Baseball Uniforms 101" style of makeovers most of these teams received in the 90s failed to catch on for a reason. 

Well...the Blue Jays' and Astros' "Baseball Uniform 101" makeovers were so popular they went back to them over the crazier 70s stuff. And powder blue is effectively dead outside of the occasional throwback. 

 

11 minutes ago, NicDB said:

But the city monogram + nickname on white + city name on gray formula has its limitations.  The White Sox wore their first sock logo and the word "Sox" on their cap years before they ever wore a "C."  Even now they wouldn't feel on brand with a C, and this is a club with 19th century roots.

There are exceptions to every rule. The White Sox and A's have brands that are so rooted in history that they get a "pass" on that stuff. The Angles have successfully built around name over the locale. 

And obviously cap logos that depict logos over letters (Blue Jays, Orioles) don't need to worry about monograms at all. 

 

That being said? I personally find the locale only monogram rule to work more often than not. The A's and Sox? Yeah, they get a pass but Rockies? What the hell are you doing?

 

Regardless...the ball-in-glove's primary failing is that it's an illustration that chooses to opt for something unrelated to the team name. Yeah, an interlocking NY isn't indicative of "Yankees" in and of itself, but it's ultimately just an interlocking NY. 

The ball-in-glove is more than just a monogram, it's an actual illustration. And it forgoes all references to the team name. 

 

5 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

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.

I'm sorry, but this reminds me of the time when I was ten or so and a friend of mine tried to convince me that the Yankees' NY stood for New York Yankees. I mean...sure...maybe, but why?

[Sec19Row53]

7 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I'm sorry, but this reminds me of the time when I was ten or so and a friend of mine tried to convince me that the Yankees' NY stood for New York Yankees. I mean...sure...maybe, but why?

I thought your issue with the M-B was that baseball monograms ought to invoke the city name. Clearly the C on the Cubs' hat doesn't. By that logic, it shouldn't get the pass that it seems to get.  The Pirates and Phillies don't present their cap graphic with Pittsburgh (only with Pirates) or Philadelphia (only with Phillies) [to my knowledge on both of those - I could be wrong], so again, those are indicative of the nickname, not the location.

 

I guess I find that 'gah - they invoke the nickname too' to be a rule that isn't a rule.

 

To be clear, I'm not in the tinfoil hat category that thinks NY stand for anything other than New York

[IceCap]

7 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

The Pirates and Phillies don't present their cap graphic with Pittsburgh (only with Pirates) or Philadelphia (only with Phillies) [to my knowledge on both of those - I could be wrong], so again, those are indicative of the nickname, not the location.

The Pirates' road uniform uses a "PITTSBURGH" wordmark in the same font as the P in the cap logo. I don't see what's so controversial about saying the Pirates' P stands for Pittsburgh. 

With the Phillies? Eh...the name is basically short form for "Philadelphia" anyway. The whole identity celebrates the city over everything else

 

The Cubs? I guess but I've always viewed it as versatile. Yes, the C forms the first letter in "Cubs" in the logo, but it also stands for "Chicago" on the cap. They've never worn a cap that used the (C-ubs) logo so that's how I see it. 

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I really don't think the C on their caps stands for "Cubs".  Or that the "P" stands for "Pirates".

[packerfan21396]

Brand new mural in a northern Milwaukee suburb by me in a "revitalizing" (but yet planning on being the exact same as it once was) mall:

 

It's the only sports logo on it too... Oops

[Sec19Row53]

16 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The Pirates' road uniform uses a "PITTSBURGH" wordmark in the same font as the P in the cap logo. I don't see what's so controversial about saying the Pirates' P stands for Pittsburgh. 

With the Phillies? Eh...the name is basically short form for "Philadelphia" anyway. The whole identity celebrates the city over everything else

 

The Cubs? I guess but I've always viewed it as versatile. Yes, the C forms the first letter in "Cubs" in the logo, but it also stands for "Chicago" on the cap. They've never worn a cap that used the (C-ubs) logo so that's how I see it. 

Woo - glad I gave myself the smallest of outs on that one

Thanks for the input. I will no longer Canuck-jack this discussion

[Gothamite]

3 minutes ago, packerfan21396 said:

Brand new mural in a northern Milwaukee suburb by me in a "revitalizing" (but yet planning on being the exact same as it once was) mall:

 

It's the only sports logo on it too... Oops

 

Eh, it'll always be a part of the local history.

 

Which mall is that?

[packerfan21396]

10 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Eh, it'll always be a part of the local history.

 

Which mall is that?

Bayshore Mall Bayshore Town Center The Bayshore.

[McCall]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Here's another view of the card.

 

 

And yes, the seams do appear to be different from the gold.  Otherwise they'd blend in with the ball at this size.

If you look at the gold outline around the glove at the bottom, it gets a tad bit "reddish" too. Maybe it is just something with the distortion of the pic.