Jump to content

Radical Rebrands by Bruins


Bruins
 Share

Recommended Posts

0qdyOBp.jpg

 

Hello again, CCSLC!

The inspiration for this series comes courtesy of the semi-recent rebranding of the Los Angeles Rams, which I didn't love.

However, there was an element of it that I really enjoyed and that was how unique and innovative it tried to be. 

And although I still hate the centerpiece, I liked that the redesign introduced new ideas and didn't just retread the generic "sporty" design aesthetic.

That's the purpose of this series, take teams, no matter how traditional, and rebrand them, well, radically.

These aren't serious proposals, just some (hopefully) interesting ideas of how teams could look.

 

Selection of the team is determined by drawing a random name from a hat from the 93 existing NFL, NHL, & MLB teams.

Why no NBA? Because I feel the City Jersey Program and each team having like 19 uniforms has bankrupt that league of any more truly interesting/groudbreaking ideas. And it's my series, so.

The first random draw produced:

 

COTSM7s.jpgwx27i0K.jpg

pAIcjxN.jpg 

am8KFj6.jpg

1qnOKR7.jpg

iEchSv4.jpgD9kckdK.jpg

biYS2wi.jpg 

TNC3zit.jpg

 

 

Let me know any thoughts/critiques you've got, thanks as always!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's amazing, and I can't wait for the rest of the series. That being said, I have a few tiny gripes. First, the color scheme, while amazing, needs to be tweaked a bit in my opinion. The powder blue doesn't contrast against the white all that well, which makes numbers and NOB's mostly unreadable. The royal blue seems a bit too harsh against the softer powder blue as well, perhaps toning down the boldness of it and going for a slightly softer shade would be a bit easier on the eyes. Aside from those minor nitpicks, this is an incredible start to what should be a tremendously entertaining series. Well done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome work. Definitely gives the team their own distinctive look. If I had one gripe, the "K" in the crest doesn't really read as a "K" to me. It's almost more of a "R". I think if you filled it the triangle it would read much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cool overall aesthetic you've got here for the Royals. I'll echo @logodawg about the K in the "KC" (though not about filling in the gap) and @PERRIN's comment about wanting a less saturated royal blue and the poor contrast between white and powder blue.

I'll add that the sort of rounded swoop of the top of the R in Royals feels a bit out of place (but not bad per se)

 

Also not really feeling the choice of number font... I'd either continue with the modernist blackletter or just go plain block font.

 

I like the argyle/chessboard sock pattern, maybe a diamond could appear at the top of the pants stripes?

 

Finally, did you consider making a Kansas City wordmark?

 

Good work, and definitely a fun idea for a series!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very strong re-brand, one that would actually work (unlike the real life MLS).

 

As others mentioned, the K doesn't stand out - however I could see that as 'RC' (Royals City) so that's another way to us that.

 

Other than that, this is a great start to the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll echo the sentiment that the K in the KC doesn't really read as a K.  You're also gonna have to add an outline stroke to the royal and white numbers/names to make this work.

Either way, I look forward to the rest of this series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for the feedback guys!

 

On 5/24/2021 at 6:02 PM, PERRIN said:

That's amazing, and I can't wait for the rest of the series. That being said, I have a few tiny gripes. First, the color scheme, while amazing, needs to be tweaked a bit in my opinion. The powder blue doesn't contrast against the white all that well, which makes numbers and NOB's mostly unreadable. The royal blue seems a bit too harsh against the softer powder blue as well, perhaps toning down the boldness of it and going for a slightly softer shade would be a bit easier on the eyes. Aside from those minor nitpicks, this is an incredible start to what should be a tremendously entertaining series. Well done!

 

On 5/24/2021 at 7:27 PM, Friedrich Stuart Macbeth said:

Would you try a navy variant? It'll contrast the powder blue well.

 

I totally see the problem with the lack of contrast between the white and powder blue. They didn't have any outlines to separate the white on the powder blues in the 70's & 80's, but I agree legibility was a concern back then too. Royal blue is a must for an obvious reason, and I wanted a very bold look that shouts at you, in the vein of radical rebrands. Not to say I don't see your points with the Royal & Powder, but the without the electric blue, the mood I was going for is almost lost. Just a few shades milder might make a good difference though.

 

 

On 5/24/2021 at 8:18 PM, logodawg said:

Awesome work. Definitely gives the team their own distinctive look. If I had one gripe, the "K" in the crest doesn't really read as a "K" to me. It's almost more of a "R". I think if you filled it the triangle it would read much better.

 

On 5/25/2021 at 12:14 PM, DukeofChutney said:

That's a very strong re-brand, one that would actually work (unlike the real life MLS).

 

As others mentioned, the K doesn't stand out - however I could see that as 'RC' (Royals City) so that's another way to us that.

 

Other than that, this is a great start to the series.

 

On 5/25/2021 at 9:48 PM, NicDB said:

I'll echo the sentiment that the K in the KC doesn't really read as a K.  You're also gonna have to add an outline stroke to the royal and white numbers/names to make this work.

Either way, I look forward to the rest of this series.

 

Now this was a huge concern when I got to the monogram, and I agree it does not read very well. The font that I had used for the word mark had a K that looked just like this, except taller. Additionally, multiple styles of blackletter K's read like R's, but not to this degree admittedly. In hindsight I should've separated the top right diamond of the K more from the left top diamond. I got too symmetry happy I guess.

 

 

On 5/25/2021 at 12:02 AM, vtgco said:

A cool overall aesthetic you've got here for the Royals. I'll echo @logodawg about the K in the "KC" (though not about filling in the gap) and @PERRIN's comment about wanting a less saturated royal blue and the poor contrast between white and powder blue.

I'll add that the sort of rounded swoop of the top of the R in Royals feels a bit out of place (but not bad per se)

 

Also not really feeling the choice of number font... I'd either continue with the modernist blackletter or just go plain block font.

 

I like the argyle/chessboard sock pattern, maybe a diamond could appear at the top of the pants stripes?

 

Finally, did you consider making a Kansas City wordmark?

 

Good work, and definitely a fun idea for a series!

 

Every point you make here is valid. The # font was a tough, tough choice, and I usually hate delicate numbers on sports uniforms. When I tried a blackletter, it looked too redundant, and when I tried a classic block it made the uniforms look too harsh for the mood I was going for. When I got to the font I ended up choosing, I really liked the way it brought out the elegance in the blackletter "Royals", and gave the uniforms a more unique tone. I'd be very much against changing it.

 

Thanks about the argyle pattern, I don't want to overdo it with the diamonds, and I think putting one on the pants stripe would get pretty close to the line. It would be one of those cool little details akin to the chest patch on the Rams jerseys though.

 

Yes I did consider a KC wordmark, pretty heavily actually. The reason I chose against it was because the Royals mark looked so much better on the powder blues, and there is no purely road uni in the set that would demand a city name on the chest. There was just really no need for one.

 

Thank you!

 

Again, I really appreciate all the C&C and agree with a lot of it.

 

 

 

(P.S. Let's just say Draw 2 was Amazin')

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.