Minnesota Twins New Identity

[FinsUp1214]

I like what I’m seeing so far for the most part, but I do think the “Twins” wordmark needs a navy outline. It may just be that I’m used to every Twins wordmark having an outline of some kind, but single-color doesn’t look quite right, it’s not substantial enough in weight. I do like the actual construction of the wordmark a lot, though. 
 

Count me in as a big fan of the new “TC” logo, also. The contour of the top of the “T” and the “C” works so much better without the sharp serifs, and the whole thing looks much more balanced as a result. I never realized the “TC” needed those changes until I saw them.

[Kg54mvp]

59 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

I like what I’m seeing so far for the most part, but I do think the “Twins” wordmark needs a navy outline. It may just be that I’m used to every Twins wordmark having an outline of some kind, but single-color doesn’t look quite right, it’s not substantial enough in weight. I do like the actual construction of the wordmark a lot, though. 
 

Count me in as a big fan of the new “TC” logo, also. The contour of the top of the “T” and the “C” works so much better without the sharp serifs, and the whole thing looks much more balanced as a result. I never realized the “TC” needed those changes until I saw them.

Agreed on needing an outline. It does feel like almost a rough draft in a way, or a prototype.

[MJD7]

4 hours ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Beaten to it. Here's the picture as above:

 

 

@coco1997 your wish is granted!

 

Updated concept assuming the T-shirt and pennant are showing jersey accurate colors

 

Really like the script.

It’s hard to tell in the picture, but I’m pretty sure the numbers on the “Miranda” shirt still have a navy outline. Here’s to hoping the wordmark does too.

 

I like the new wordmark, but I think I liked the more “script” version of it better, closer to @SFGiants58’s original mark. I’ll wait & see until it’s officially revealed. Also, @SFGiants58, your work appears to have given inspiration to an MLB club, congratulations! That must be a first for these boards, at least on this obvious of a level.

[Bmac]

4 hours ago, McCall said:

I know, but these don't look like anything other than fashion caps. Very basic. One's even khaki. You'd probably see slouch versions of game caps grouped together. None of these look like they'd be one.

We've already heard from multiple sources that there's supposed to be a new on field cap featuring an M with a star above it, as seen in the leaked photo. The on field cap is probably a different colorway, but that's definitely the logo.

[seasaltvanilla]

This would be my best case scenario, re: outlines and colors.

[tBBP]

1 hour ago, MJD7 said:

It’s hard to tell in the picture, but I’m pretty sure the numbers on the “Miranda” shirt still have a navy outline. Here’s to hoping the wordmark does too.

 

They don't; everything looks to be single layer. And if it's appearing on the pennants that way, that all but guarantees those scripts (& numbers) will appear on the uniforms that way. That being the case--and part of me wonders if they were inspired to do that by looking at the TC lockup itself--then this would definitely be a unique (at least to MLB) way to present the most overused colorway in the bigs, and to great effect at that. There's something far, well, cleaner about single-layer scripts and numbers that sharpens the whole thing--especially when the letter and number forms are well crafted, as these appear to be. I know most would prefer--and are more used to--outlines, but I think the overall package actually appears stronger without, at least in this guise...

 

16 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

This would be my best case scenario, re: outlines and colors.

 

...Though I certainly wouldn't be mad about this at all.

[BadSeed84]

Also looks like MINNESOTA on a navy jersey will be back in printed arched letters.

[MJD7]

2 hours ago, tBBP said:

They don't; everything looks to be single layer. And if it's appearing on the pennants that way, that all but guarantees those scripts (& numbers) will appear on the uniforms that way. That being the case--and part of me wonders if they were inspired to do that by looking at the TC lockup itself--then this would definitely be a unique (at least to MLB) way to present the most overused colorway in the bigs, and to great effect at that. There's something far, well, cleaner about single-layer scripts and numbers that sharpens the whole thing--especially when the letter and number forms are well crafted, as these appear to be. I know most would prefer--and are more used to--outlines, but I think the overall package actually appears stronger without, at least in this guise...

Yea, looking at it again, I think I was just trying to keep my hopes up. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a single-layer wordmark, but I would much prefer it to be navy, and the front number to be red. Doing the opposite would just make the front number stand out too much, I think. Then again, having a single-layer wordmark and a red front number immediately draws to mind Dodgers comparisons. So who knows, we'll see how they handle it.

[namefornamesake]

Personally, I think the red-only wordmark gives the new design a dash of uniqueness, which is valuable for a red/blue team in a red/blue league. 

[FiddySicks]

On 11/12/2022 at 10:51 AM, seasaltvanilla said:

Beaten to it. Here's the picture as above:

 

 

@coco1997 your wish is granted!

 

Updated concept assuming the T-shirt and pennant are showing jersey accurate colors

 

Really like the script.

Ok, I actually REALLY like this. Still think the pinstripes should return, but I like the minimalism and think it works really well. 

[BBTV]

At first I saw TUHNS.  I dislike when scripts aren't scripts and are simply standard letters that are linked.  You invariably get some kind of awkward connection somewhere, like the one between the w and i.

 

I love the way this appears to be heading, but I really dislike the fake script.  It's like they tried to bridge the current wordmark (which uses individual letters) with the cursive of the classic one, and ended up with the worst of each.

[MJD7]

21 minutes ago, BBTV said:

At first I saw TUHNS.  I dislike when scripts aren't scripts and are simply standard letters that are linked.  You invariably get some kind of awkward connection somewhere, like the one between the w and i.

 

I love the way this appears to be heading, but I really dislike the fake script.  It's like they tried to bridge the current wordmark (which uses individual letters) with the cursive of the classic one, and ended up with the worst of each.

I agree with this to a degree. I'll reserve judgement until it's officially released, but I wish they went with the earlier script version that was used on social media & created by @SFGiants58.  Here's a comparison of recreations I've attempted making of both:

 

I do appreciate that the newer version is bolder, which works if they're truly going without an outline. However, the script version is more elegant and flows better, in my opinion. A combination of the two might be ideal.

[Ridleylash]

20 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

I do appreciate that the newer version is bolder, which works if they're truly going without an outline. However, the script version is more elegant and flows better, in my opinion. A combination of the two might be ideal.

I think I'd agree with you on merging the bolder lettering with the script look; the tail simply works a lot better than just having a random shape beneath the word, to me.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

28 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

I think I'd agree with you on merging the bolder lettering with the script look; the tail simply works a lot better than just having a random shape beneath the word, to me.

 

But its not random. When the Twinkies did their rebrand in 1987, they chose that specific underlining to emphasize the WIN part of the team name.

Minnesota had been a historically bad team and at the time it was seen as trying to push the club forward. Then they promptly won the World Series.

[Survival79]

57 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

Here's a comparison of recreations I've attempted making of both:

 

 

A combination of the two might be ideal.

 

Replace the win on the right with the win on the left.

[MJD7]

1 hour ago, Ridleylash said:

I think I'd agree with you on merging the bolder lettering with the script look; the tail simply works a lot better than just having a random shape beneath the word, to me.

I don't like how the tail touches the bottom of the "n," I'd maybe go with something like this:

I don't mind the idea of the underlined "win," but I do think the tail they appear to have went with does look kind of wonky.

 

37 minutes ago, Survival79 said:

Replace the win on the right with the win on the left.

A few subtle tweaks would do the trick I think, if I may:

[tBBP]

1 hour ago, MJD7 said:

I agree with this to a degree. I'll reserve judgement until it's officially released, but I wish they went with the earlier script version that was used on social media & created by @SFGiants58.  Here's a comparison of recreations I've attempted making of both:

 

I do appreciate that the newer version is bolder, which works if they're truly going without an outline. However, the script version is more elegant and flows better, in my opinion. A combination of the two might be ideal.

 

The details are small nuances, but I can tell the new script was very obviously designed and optimized for use in the digital space--and given the world we live in now, that's no small consideration. Sure, the thing is also going across the chest of a jersey, but these days more people would be inclined to see it digitally before they see it (the script) physically, live and in person. 

 

All that said, I just noticed how much less of a join exists between the i and n in the new Twins mark; granted you can write a script that way, but it does seem somewhat unnatural. Either way, now I'll never unsee that. 

[BBTV]

8 hours ago, tBBP said:

All that said, I just noticed how much less of a join exists between the i and n in the new Twins mark; granted you can write a script that way, but it does seem somewhat unnatural. Either way, now I'll never unsee that. 

 

I'm not sure if the join between i and n is worse than the w and i, but they're both pretty bad.  The i to n is especially bad because they kept the sharp/flat part of the n.  Either do cursive or don't.  This half-way solution solves nothing.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

13 hours ago, BBTV said:

At first I saw TUHNS.  I dislike when scripts aren't scripts and are simply standard letters that are linked.  You invariably get some kind of awkward connection somewhere, like the one between the w and i.

 

I love the way this appears to be heading, but I really dislike the fake script.  It's like they tried to bridge the current wordmark (which uses individual letters) with the cursive of the classic one, and ended up with the worst of each.

 

In hand written script, the left minim of the "n" always starts at the top. It has to because the old pen nibs couldn't be pushed upwards on the page, you had to pull it downwards to get that shape.

That's why letters that aren't linked cursive tend to have the little extra tab in the top left as a starting point for the down stroke:

[OnWis97]

The (apparent) new word mark is a little thin for my taste; not bold enough. I understand the idea and looks like fears of them going crazy and abandoning history were unfounded. I don't think it's going to be terrible, but it's not exactly how I would have liked the idea to be executed.