OnWis97

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

 

It's going to upset some people, yes, but I see this as something similar to the Vikings. The idea that the Rams have a horn on the helmet will still be there. I don't personally find the idea to be anything too drastic if it's the same signature idea. A sorta different horn design isn't a deal breaker for me personally.

 

 

Using the new horn seems like a perfectly nice modernization of the classic design.  I feel like the shade of blue is also a huge victory.  As I just posted on twitter:

 

Am I the only one who thinks this is a great logo, particularly this version with the blue wordmark? Has another team ever successfully morphed an "anatomic" helmet design into a proper standalone logo this successfully? (Bengals striped B being less successful.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Probably a safe choice of words:

 

 

 

Shame they're operating from a faulty premise, though.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that the Chargers started getting serious about the powder blue throwbacks in the throes of the darkened and faded early 2000s, when so many teams, including the Chargers themselves. had drab or "intimidating" uniforms, so when people actually saw a splash of color amid all the black, midnight blue, midnight green, copper, bronze, brick red, "Vegas gold," and whatever else made up the palette of 2003 malaise, a team wearing light blue and yellow was so idiosyncratic that everyone was like "whoa, these are the best uniforms ever!" They weren't really the best, they were just were the Manic Pixie Dream Throwbacks teaching us how to love again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL’s Sr. Creative Director posted a nice breakdown of the changes to the Chargers’ bolt logo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, upperV03 said:

The NFL’s Sr. Creative Director posted a nice breakdown of the changes to the Chargers’ bolt logo:

 

That graphic makes It look like a South Park character got a haircut.

 

But in all seriousness, I love the update.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m late to the party, but here are my thoughts on the LA logo changes:

 

I’m definitely in the camp of not at all being a fan of either new Rams logo. It seems they really overthought what should have been a simple update. I never would have thought orange would be added to the team’s palette, even as small of an accent as it is, but here we are. The gradients seem to be completely unnecessary and add nothing to the dimension of the horn. The worst part about this is it almost guarantees they’re going to mess with the helmet horn, really the main iconic and unchanging aspect of their brand. At least they got the royal & yellow right.

 

As for the Chargers, on the other hand, everything they’ve done with their logo revamp is just about perfect. It makes me realize shortcomings I didn’t even see of the previous logo. It evokes speed and lightning way better than the prior logo did. It’s also super exciting to see what the removal of navy might entail for the uniforms. Hopefully the powder primary with the yellow facemask was a test for what they’re planning to unveil this year, and we just didn’t know it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chakfu said:

 

Using the new horn seems like a perfectly nice modernization of the classic design. 

 

The helmet horn has stayed the same (colours aside) for over 70 years. There's no need for any modernization.

 

You don't see the Packers or Bears updating their helmet logos even though the fonts they use aren't seen anywhere else in their branding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the upgrade to the bolt. But, I am skeptical of how the jerseys will look with only light blue, gold and white to work with. I liked the navy blue outline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kimball said:

I love the upgrade to the bolt. But, I am skeptical of how the jerseys will look with only light blue, gold and white to work with. I liked the navy blue outline. 

 

They'll look pretty good.

 

f86e0330b44e25fcb6648a8ca194becb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope the chargers dont add the numbers back on the helmets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, _J_ said:

I just hope the chargers dont add the numbers back on the helmets.


With the comment on simplifying and evolving, I don't expect to see them on there. Especially after removing navy from the palette. Powder or gold numbers on a white helmet at that scale would not be all that legible from a discernible distance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TruColor said:

 

It was, and still is, this:

 

spacer.png

 

Ugh, I just noticed my typo of 385.  You are our resident color expert, so thanks for clarifying.

The weird thing is, when I tried to match in both Corel and Illustrator, I got the same results with the 285 being slightly off but 3005 matching perfectly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, _J_ said:

I just hope the chargers dont add the numbers back on the helmets.

 

THIS.  This, this, this, this, this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of questions about "What changed?" with the #Chargers bolt update. 1. Didn't want to change the essence of the bolt 2. More natural arc 3. Repair misaligned cutback 4. Balanced the width and horizontal location of the "cutbacks" for more symmetry 4. Remove arduous keyline ⚡pic.twitter.com/ZQ53I9KJaZ

— Dane Storrusten (@DaneStorrusten) March 26, 2020


If I'd known Dane was working with the Chargers, I'd have known they were in good hands.  His work, particularly on the A11FL which never got out the gate, is truly fantastic.

Share this post


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

 

Ugh, I just noticed my typo of 385.  You are our resident color expert, so thanks for clarifying.

The weird thing is, when I tried to match in both Corel and Illustrator, I got the same results with the 285 being slightly off but 3005 matching perfectly.

 

 

You can't match Pantone in RGB. Pantone is a printed medium, not screen. It isn't 1 to 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

You can't match Pantone in RGB. Pantone is a printed medium, not screen. It isn't 1 to 1.

 

Same with CMYK. Pantone colors (Pantone Matching System/Solid colors anyway) are spot inks; only way to accurately reproduce PANTONE 285 C is to use the following formula ink mix:

  • 37.50% Reflex Blue
  • 12.50% Process Blue
  • 50.00% Transparent White

And then, print on coated paper stock. (What the 'C' indicates.)

 

CMYK values are - like RGB values - just simulations of the intended color.

 

(This is one of my many pet peeves these days...too many people think that Pantone colors are CMYK colors. No, they are spot/solid colors. There's a big difference.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

The helmet horn has stayed the same (colours aside) for over 70 years. There's no need for any modernization.

 

You don't see the Packers or Bears updating their helmet logos even though the fonts they use aren't seen anywhere else in their branding.

A - No the horn HASN'T remained unchanged for over 70 years, colors aside. It has changed size and location on the helmet, and if you scroll back a few pages I guarantee someone has posted pictures of when the horn was more realistic, featuring 'ridges' on the helmet.

 

B - The size and shape of the Packer G has indeed changed on more than one occasion. It originally had a much narrower green outline and the entire logo was far more football shaped and less rugby ball shaped than it is now. As for the Bears, they have, at a minimum, added the orange color to the helmet logo in the early 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TruColor said:

 

Same with CMYK. Pantone colors (Pantone Matching System/Solid colors anyway) are spot inks; only way to accurately reproduce PANTONE 285 C is to use the following formula ink mix:

  • 37.50% Reflex Blue
  • 12.50% Process Blue
  • 50.00% Transparent White

And then, print on coated paper stock. (What the 'C' indicates.)

 

CMYK values are - like RGB values - just simulations of the intended color.

 

(This is one of my many pet peeves these days...too many people think that Pantone colors are CMYK colors. No, they are spot/solid colors. There's a big difference.)

 

 

Oh I know, I just didn't want to get too complicated in my response :) But honestly I love hearing it and I kinda geek out on color talk so it's cool to hear someone who knows even more than me explain it. I worked at a printing press in the early 2000's, but I've been almost exclusively digital designing now these past 10 years. Sigh, I miss the print world...

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.