Similar NFL Typefaces

[artvandelay]

let me know if you see them or remember. It's very possible an individual designer

has it on their site. Many people worked on concepts and in tweaking the final logo.

I would know if there legit, I don't want someone taking credit

for something they didn't do.

I know I've seen them somewhere, and they very well might have a legitimate case for claiming them. I'll have to look for them.

Peterman (returns) Flash of lightning Elaine I just realized why I like this cartoon so much.

Elaine: Oh! Do tell sir?

Peterman It's a Ziggy!

Elaine: A Ziggy?

Peterman: That irreverence , that wit I'd recognize it anywhere. Some charlatan has stolen a Ziggy and passed it off as his own. I can prove it. Quick Elaine , to my archives!

[rtrich11]

I think part of y'all's argument on how these are similar/dissimilar all stem from the fact that the fonts have little treatment to them. What I mean is if you look at the Eagles wordmark, all done up with depth and shadows, it stands apart from these. Or look at the Colts. The font is much more condensed than these and it therefore looks shorter. The Saints use a font quite different from others, and looks antique-y. All with few similarities.

These shown are fonts on their own, very horizontal in treatment. Many with similar serifs & angles. No wonder we feel they are familiar to eachother.

I'd bet most of this style stems from how it looks on clothing.

My experience has shown that Properties has more of a final word on things.

How would you like to be the Bengals and have someone hand you that nasty wordmark, then say that you'll be using the striped B, and start phasing out the tiger head primary. I'd be ticked.

[B-Rich]

I sort of agree with rtrich11. As "fonts", yes, they have noticeable and varying differences. But as "wordmarks", they are really quite similar-- they are all-caps, they have the small location name centered over large team name continuity, and-- they have a liberal use of serifs.

To continue the Seinfeld bent-- "not that there's anything wrong with that".

It's just, I can remember in the days of collecting Icee cups with NFL helmets and team names on them, and watching those names done in the end zones of each team on TV, how different and distinctive the various team's wordmarks looked. The Eagles had that weird curvy font, the Vikings had the art deco block stencil in all caps, the Steelers had the more military look stencil in both caps and lower-case, etc. The Lions had that circus-look font, the Dolphins were, I think, the only team that used script. Now, many of those old fonts/wordmarks are still in use (afore-mentioned Saints and Colts; Redskins, Cowboys) and some teams have adopted new distinctive wordmarks (afore-mentioned Eagles; Ravens, Chargers). But there seems to be a lot of teams going towards a "standard" look that is indeed becoming a bit repetitive...

[ebod39]

Properties gentlly guides the teams into a direction they want. Sometimes there's

alot of push and pull about stuff. Good example is when the Jags changes number fonts,

the owner loved them and wanted them immediately. The league/properties said No

they (because apparently they didn't like them or better yet they didn't have a hand in designing them so they didn't like them) couldn't change. The owner won that one obvisouly. Which is why

I think more of the design is shifting back to the NFL and them using outside designers and they can control their product more. When you have a Nike involved it adds another money=power element and the apparel companies will partner with the teams as adversaries to get their designs on-field. A 2 on 1 situation instead of a more favorable 1 on 1 situaution

with the cards in your favor because you're the league.

[LEWJ]

Hmmm...I had heard reebok had something to do with the new Cardinals package. Maybe I heard wrong.

Sorry to pull off the subjec...but why does your signature w/ Illinois have the St. Louis Gateway Arch??

Just wonderin'

[TruColor]

I've had this forever, but here's a graphic showing the official NFL wordmarks from 1972:

Check out that Jets font - "Holy Mary Tyler Moore, Batman!"...

[TruColor]

...but why does your signature w/ Illinois have the St. Louis Gateway Arch??

...might have somthin' to do with a certain basketball tournament starting up in a couple of days...and ending in St. Louis...

...I want to say "March Madness", or somethin' like that...

[pcgd]

...but why does your signature w/ Illinois have the St. Louis Gateway Arch??

...might have somthin' to do with a certain basketball tournament starting up in a couple of days...and ending in St. Louis...

...I want to say "March Madness", or somethin' like that...

ding ding ding!

[slapshot]

I've had this forever, but here's a graphic showing the official NFL wordmarks from 1972:

Check out that Jets font - "Holy Mary Tyler Moore, Batman!"...

hmm...didn't realize Berthold City was that old, though I'm pretty sure I saw it in the credits for "Mannix"

Most of those wordmarks are still used by the teams. And if people are noticing the similarities between the Cards, Seahawks, etc. for the current season, look at the similar stylings from back in 1972.

Bills, Colts, Cowboys...almost the same font for all 3.

The Packers and Steelers used the same stencil lettering, but the Steelers were upper and lowercase.

The Bears and Raiders are almost identical.

I think it was only in the last 10-15 years that cities were even added to the wordmarks. I agree that the treatment of many of the new wordmarks are similar (small city name, larger team name underneath, very plain treatment of both). I think aside from the Eagles, Panthers and Rams, hardly any other team uses a more elaborate logo treatment of the city and team name united as one graphic.

[TruColor]

...oh, and this is slightly off-topic, but someone should vectorize this bad-boy:

1972 Buffalo Bills Secondary Logo:

[slapshot]

Vectorize or vaporize?

[ColeJ]

this thread is why i love this forum...

[IronChefShark]

Most of those wordmarks are still used by the teams. And if people are noticing the similarities between the Cards, Seahawks, etc. for the current season, look at the similar stylings from back in 1972.

that old patriots font looks the same as the colts font as well if you disregard the stars and stripes treatment

Bills, Colts, Cowboys...almost the same font for all 3.I think aside from the Eagles, Panthers and Rams, hardly any other team uses a more elaborate logo treatment of the city and team name united as one graphic.

the same can be said for the Jaguars also

[Jezus_Ghoti]

If you are counting the Bills, Colts, Cowboys and now the Patriots as similar, you may as well throw in the Broncos.

That said, I think teams should make every effort to have a truly unique wordmark.

[sacker12]

I've had this forever, but here's a graphic showing the official NFL wordmarks from 1972:

Check out that Jets font - "Holy Mary Tyler Moore, Batman!"...

hmm...didn't realize Berthold City was that old, though I'm pretty sure I saw it in the credits for "Mannix"

Most of those wordmarks are still used by the teams. And if people are noticing the similarities between the Cards, Seahawks, etc. for the current season, look at the similar stylings from back in 1972.

Bills, Colts, Cowboys...almost the same font for all 3.

The Packers and Steelers used the same stencil lettering, but the Steelers were upper and lowercase.

The Bears and Raiders are almost identical.

I think it was only in the last 10-15 years that cities were even added to the wordmarks. I agree that the treatment of many of the new wordmarks are similar (small city name, larger team name underneath, very plain treatment of both). I think aside from the Eagles, Panthers and Rams, hardly any other team uses a more elaborate logo treatment of the city and team name united as one graphic.

I didn't know that Rams logo was that old. I see that logo on their front bumpers on their helmets.

[shiznit1083]

I understand that the wordmarks are positioned and styled similarly even though the fonts used are extremely different, but I happen to like it that way. I love the NFL movement to build NFL brands. It builds a sense of uniformity, yet each team has there own individual feel. It's smart marketing and business really. I think it helps build a certain "feel" to the NFL marketing scheme. Some may disagree, but I for one like it. Besides, can any of you say you really dislike any of these logos?

[Gothamite]

I preferred the Packers wordmarks that Nike used when they had the contract. Real throwbacks to the Lombardi era.

[andrewharrington]

I definitely think this idea hinges much more on the structure of the marks rather than the similarity of the fonts. The fonts definitely are from a similar "style," but i would not describe them as "similar." The fact that each is centered, with a small city name and a large nickname below, straight font, little treatment, similar weight, no italics, and of relatively similar proportion makes them all seem to fit the same mold. With that said, I kind of like them. There are some wordmarks I would not like to see taken away, like the Dolphins script and others, but i like the subtle differences in a continuous group of marks.

[andrewharrington]

I think I found another by the same studio! Check out the wordmark. It kind of reminds me of the Cardinals, Seahawks, and the Texans in particular.

[artvandelay]

Hmmm...I had heard reebok had something to do with the new Cardinals package.  Maybe I heard wrong.

Sorry to pull off the subjec...but why does your signature w/ Illinois have the St. Louis Gateway Arch??

Just wonderin'

Let's just pretend you didn't write that.