Falcons New Unis 2020

[the admiral 28,180]

2 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

I’m personally not a fan of shoehorning the “ATL” in there, but at least then people could stop pretending like the Falcons’ logo is supposed to also be an “F.” 

 

Double-wrong!

 

1) I think the ATL looks great in there, "ATL" being one of the precious few IATA abbreviations that actually has widespread cultural currency, and it's not shoehorned at all, it comes together so well that I'm surprised no one in the Concepts folder thought of it already. Unless they did, in which case, disregard. The only issue is that it won't reverse well, what is ⅃TA ꟻ?, but that's been an issue with the regular F-for-Falcon since day one, so whatever, either treat it like a true monogram instead of a face and don't reverse it on the other side, or roll with it. 

 

2) No one's ever pretended, it was always intended to be an F and they made it more obvious upon the redesign such that you can't not see it as an F unless you can't read.

[chakfu 387]

I see a lot of love for the red helmets.  I never liked the look of them, seemed very clunky.  Granted - I was never aware of the falcons until the Glanville rebrand. Similar to that era, I preferred the white bolt Chargers over the yellow.  I feel like these 90s looks were more "clean" as opposed to the "coarse" thick contrasting colors of the 80s versions.  Some of this may be bias prefering the fresh/current look over the old look I was unfamiliar with. 

 

I feel the same thing about earl 80s baseball.  Mainly block C Indians versus Wahoo.  Yet I like the current block C without the white outline better than either.  Early 80s Padres, Mariners, Braves, Rangers all seem to have the same problem to me.  Too blocky, coarse, contrasty to me.

[AndrewMLind 2,296]

7 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

Double-wrong!

 

1) I think the ATL looks great in there, "ATL" being one of the precious few IATA abbreviations that actually has widespread cultural currency, and it's not shoehorned at all, it comes together so well that I'm surprised no one in the Concepts folder thought of it already. Unless they did, in which case, disregard. The only issue is that it won't reverse well, what is ⅃TA ꟻ?, but that's been an issue with the regular F-for-Falcon since day one, so whatever, either treat it like a true monogram instead of a face and don't reverse it on the other side, or roll with it. 

 

2) No one's ever pretended, it was always intended to be an F and they made it more obvious upon the redesign such that you can't not see it as an F unless you can't read.

1) That’s just your opinion, even if you pointed out a flaw in the design (since it would have to be flipped on one side of the helmet).

 

2) Can you provide any proof that was the designer’s intention as opposed to something someone believed they saw after the fact, and then everyone thereafter assumed was true because they saw it in slideshows about “Hidden Things In Sports Logos?” If not, it’s the same as the Eagles’ logo having an “E.” Just a popular notion, but not factual.

[L10nheart404 1,055]

2 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

 

2) Can you provide any proof that was the designer’s intention as opposed to something someone believed they saw after the fact, and then everyone thereafter assumed was true because they saw it in slideshows about “Hidden Things In Sports Logos?” If not, it’s the same as the Eagles’ logo having an “E.” Just a popular notion, but not factual.

Actually, It was rendered to be a "F' as well. I believe there's an article (not Bleacher report) on the designers' intentions. You'll have to look it up

[Newport 350]

10 hours ago, chakfu said:

I see a lot of love for the red helmets.  I never liked the look of them, seemed very clunky.  Granted - I was never aware of the falcons until the Glanville rebrand. Similar to that era, I preferred the white bolt Chargers over the yellow.  I feel like these 90s looks were more "clean" as opposed to the "coarse" thick contrasting colors of the 80s versions.  Some of this may be bias prefering the fresh/current look over the old look I was unfamiliar with. 

 

I feel the same thing about earl 80s baseball.  Mainly block C Indians versus Wahoo.  Yet I like the current block C without the white outline better than either.  Early 80s Padres, Mariners, Braves, Rangers all seem to have the same problem to me.  Too blocky, coarse, contrasty to me.

People like change for change sake. I’ve noticed that a lot around here.

[L10nheart404 1,055]

To be fair... Historically, the Falcons have always been a red helmet team... The black lids have been dominant since the 90s(first SB run) so that's why they're more synonymous with the Falcons than red helmets. But, red has just as much history. Honestly, I just don't see a better uni combo for ATL than this 

[FormerLurker 321]

Do we have a release date yet? I just realized 404 is coming up and that’s ATL’s area code. 

[dont care 6,028]

5 minutes ago, FormerLurker said:

Do we have a release date yet? I just realized 404 is coming up and that’s ATL’s area code. 

No, but we do know the red will be almost pink

[FormerLurker 321]

2 minutes ago, dont care said:

No, but we do know the red will be almost pink

Step on a lego.

[dont care 6,028]

Just now, FormerLurker said:

Step on a lego.

Maybe if you didn’t make up bull, you wouldn’t be mocked.

[Brave-Bird 08 1,703]

I am absolutely down for red helmets as long as they aren't a basic gloss finish like the throwbacks they wore in the 2000s-2010s. Give them a nice satin finish, kind of like what the Vikings have done with theirs, in a tad deeper red. 

[the admiral 28,180]

My favorite soap opera leading man of the late '80s was Tad Deepered.

[IceCap 21,945]

16 minutes ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

I am absolutely down for red helmets as long as they aren't a basic gloss finish like the throwbacks they wore in the 2000s-2010s. Give them a nice satin finish, kind of like what the Vikings have done with theirs, in a tad deeper red. 

Eh....

I've never seen a non-gloss finish that is an improvement over what a gloss option looks like. Gloss is just the way to go, in my opinion. Everything else just looks gimmicky.

[IceBurgs70 356]

34 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Eh....

I've never seen a non-gloss finish that is an improvement over what a gloss option looks like. Gloss is just the way to go, in my opinion. Everything else just looks gimmicky.

 

A red version of the Jets' helmet finish would look good IMO.

[WavePunter 2,374]

16 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

Double-wrong!

 

1) I think the ATL looks great in there, "ATL" being one of the precious few IATA abbreviations that actually has widespread cultural currency, and it's not shoehorned at all, it comes together so well that I'm surprised no one in the Concepts folder thought of it already. Unless they did, in which case, disregard. The only issue is that it won't reverse well, what is ⅃TA ꟻ?, but that's been an issue with the regular F-for-Falcon since day one, so whatever, either treat it like a true monogram instead of a face and don't reverse it on the other side, or roll with it. 

 

2) No one's ever pretended, it was always intended to be an F and they made it more obvious upon the redesign such that you can't not see it as an F unless you can't read.

I've never seen it as an F, and even when trying to, it's a stretch.. and I've been able to read for over a month now..

[BBTV 19,349]

19 hours ago, Newport said:

People like change for change sake. I’ve noticed that a lot around here.

 

Don't generalize people.  That's someone else's job around here.

[MDGP 2,773]

15 hours ago, L10nheart404 said:

To be fair... Historically, the Falcons have always been a red helmet team... The black lids have been dominant since the 90s(first SB run) so that's why they're more synonymous with the Falcons than red helmets. But, red has just as much history. Honestly, I just don't see a better uni combo for ATL than this 

 

What does historically mean? The Falcons have worn black helmets for 30 seasons, six more than the red helmets were worn, which means they clearly haven't always been a red helmet team. I feel like we (myself included) discount just how long ago 1990 was.

 

[hawk36 3,353]

3 hours ago, MDGP said:

 

What does historically mean? The Falcons have worn black helmets for 30 seasons, six more than the red helmets were worn, which means they clearly haven't always been a red helmet team. I feel like we (myself included) discount just how long ago 1990 was.

 

Historic to me is what you were born with (Falcons red helmet, Bucs creamsicle, Seahawks silver, etc.). A brunette can dye their hair blond for 30 years but they are still a brunette.  

[BBTV 19,349]

Just now, hawk36 said:

Historic to me is what you were born with (Falcons red helmet, Bucs creamsicle, Seahawks silver, etc.). A brunette can dye their hair blond for 30 years but they are still a brunette.  

 

So then the Raiders are historically gold and black? 

The Jets are historically navy and gold?

The Eagles are historically powder blue and yellow?

[hawk36 3,353]

16 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

So then the Raiders are historically gold and black? 

The Jets are historically navy and gold?

The Eagles are historically powder blue and yellow?

Within reason of course. But when a team has a look for their first 10-20+ years, that to me is who they are. And, the Jets were never navy and gold, that was the Titans.