Washington Baseball

[P.I.L.L.]

i guess some people will always hate prologo or pill...

That's life... we all learn lessons from time to time. Anywayyy,

this logo's more "refined" now, symmetry / balance were an issue...

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITCISM is still appreciated.

[FiddySicks]

Im not trying to rip on you but you wanted honest constructive criticism so im gonna give it to you straight. Its boring. Its just too damn plain to be considered a logo that could be used by a professional team. It just looks like something that you would find in a list of generic logos at "Create a Hat" stores like lids or Hat Zone. When i see a good logo it makes me not only look twice but i also have to study it to really get the full effect of the logo and what it is trying to get across, this one just doesnt have any of those aspects. Like i said im being honest and take this as you will but its just not exciting enough to really be something that makes me say "WOW!!!! Thats a damn nice logo!!! I wish they would use that instead of what they have."

[P.I.L.L.]

Its boring. Its just too damn plain to be considered a logo that could be used by a professional team.

perhaps you're right... however, the fact is that most MLB logos are NOT "exciting" or complex... they're simple, straightforward letters. Primary example: both current Nats (script W / interlocking DC) cap designs are basic. plain, and "boring" as you say...

my opinion is that the script W is ok, but the interlocking DC is especially unoriginal and non-dynamic... looks like the Padres or one of the other vertically interlocking lettered logos.

Thanks for your input though.

[GMac]

true enough they arent that exciting but at the same time those designs are made so they dont look like glorified clip art... those mlb designs are done just plain better... your lines are too thin and it already looks cluttered so thicker lines would make it worse... not saying its not a good idea im just saying your execution is off...

[BBTV]

Its boring. Its just too damn plain to be considered a logo that could be used by a professional team.

perhaps you're right... however, the fact is that most MLB logos are NOT "exciting" or complex... they're simple, straightforward letters. Primary example: both current Nats (script W / interlocking DC) cap designs are basic. plain, and "boring" as you say...

my opinion is that the script W is ok, but the interlocking DC is especially unoriginal and non-dynamic... looks like the Padres or one of the other vertically interlocking lettered logos.

Thanks for your input though.

Why ask for c/c when you are just going to refute it? I'm not saying you should change your design based on what everyone else says (since ultimately it is only your opinion that matters) but if you just argue people's opinions then people will stop offering them and then you will get no help.

BTW for the first time in my life I think I agree with BucFan. They look more like softball logos than MLB logos. The shadow's aren't working, the monument in the W looks very forced, and the cap logos - while I still like the idea, just don't look very professional. I think it may be time to head in yet another direction with this concept.

[slapshot]

Too many colors. A good cap logo should not have more than 3. It's not like there can be that much detail, it's just supposed to be a quick recognizable logo that identifies you with the team. Look at the current MLB team logos. I don't think there are any that are more than 3 colors, or minutely detailed (maybe Arizona or Florida). If you simplify it even more, you don't need to have the outline of the ball. The stitches should be enough to recognize it as a baseball.

And in the future, it isn't necessary to display the logo on all possible jersey & cap combinations, on top of the Washington skyline. Just the logo by itself (and I suppose with your verbage at the bottom, if you must) is all you need, and one will not have to scroll numerous times down the screen to see it all at once.

[pcgd]

Don't put outlines directly on shapes. Put them behind the shape. IE...you have 2 shapes and the back one holds the outline.

Get rid of the "Washington" font, it looks very amature. If you want to include the Washington monument, why don't you try replacing the "I" with it. The bottom of the W is hard to realize that's what it is without the elongated part.

Please, please...don't use clip art. It doesn't matter if you own the rights or whatever, its not professional. If you are making a banner for joe idiot down the street and it has to be done in 15 mins, ok, but if its a unique concept, no clip art.

I personally don't like grey or white hats. I'd put them on blue or red, just my opinion on that though.

Sure its creative, but I really don't find it all that appealing. Perhaps if it were more dynamic. Just because other teams are restricted by tradition doesn't mean you can't make a dynamic logo for a baseball team.

As far as other MLB teams...sometimes "boring" is the way to go. Less is more. Interlocking letters is tradition in baseball. It always has been. DC took that idea, and although its not that creative, the bevels made it at least some what unique (also using a more modern font.) Some of the nicest hats in the majors are those with the interlocking letters like the STL, SD, LA, SF, NY (both), and personally I love the DC hats. If they only had a solid navy one somewhere...

I just realized I contridicted myself there. Oh well.

[P.I.L.L.]

Don't put outlines directly on shapes. Put them behind the shape. IE...you have 2 shapes and the back one holds the outline.

...Perhaps if it were more dynamic.

As far as other MLB teams...sometimes "boring" is the way to go. Less is more.

Thanks to those who offered CC... I'll try to make it more dynamic, AND simpler at the same time. pcgd, I don't follow what you're saying about the outline...

[Mings]

I don't know man, its just getting worse.

Have you tried to create your own font for the DC and tie in the stitching, instead of just throwing it on top?

I also wouldnt use two shades of grey for the baseball, just one will suffice as shading.

I would also beef up the outer blue ring and make it the same thickness as the new DC font you come up with, if you take my suggestion on that.

Get rid of the small 1 pixel outlines on the DC and the outer ring. They don't add anything and wouldn't be embroidered right.

With the suggestions I made, you could really simplify this and turn it into a coplete package that could be used for print, web, embroidery, etc. and who knows maybe DC will get an independant minor league team and you can pitch an updated logo to them.

And yeah, please get rid of the clipart. Have you tried making something along the lines of that, that would be unique? If you did that it will get much better reception.

[P.I.L.L.]

I've applied a few of the suggestions... thanks. Still working on some of the others...

also, trying to make it work on a dark color... any suggestions there would be helpful.

[IceCap]

I've applied a few of the suggestions... thanks. Still working on some of the others...

also, trying to make it work on a dark color... any suggestions there would be helpful.

imo it would look better if you used a real template. also, the shading on the bottom left portion of the baseball looks awkward. try removing it.

[Mings]

actually with the detail that you have in it, get rid of the shading on the baseball, and further reduce your color pallette to three. that will help it as well.

[LMU]

I wholeheartedly agree with icecap. You really need to get rid of the blank cap photos. They've always looked really tacky. In addition, the "DC" letters now look like they're being absorbed into the border. Either make them another color ir somehow distinguish them.

[Sterling84]

I'm not convinced that this ISN'T a great idea. But the execution is lacking and you don't seem to be willing to take a step back and revisit it from step #1.

You are basically stuck at that phase......and we've all been there....were the idea is driving you. "Oooh, I could make this #5 also be a lion's face. I could make this "T" also be a Celtic cross. I could make this "M" and "B" be a baseball glove....and so forth.

The DC Shoe company has a sweet interlocking logo. So the idea of a D and a C back to back has merit. But when you want an image to do two things at once you have to REMOVE detail and allow the brain to play back and forth and enjoy seeing both elements at once.

The famous black and white image of a silhoutte of a vase/or two human faces. It's an exercise in positive and negative space. Have you seen that? Well, it doesn't work if you put painted lillies on the vase, or give the faces eyebrows.

You've got to consciously pull back from your concept and strip it bare. THen look at it, and strip it bare further....beyond your comfort level. If you want the mirrored curves of the "D" and the "C" to function as their respective letterforms AND as the lacing of a baseball you've got to think of a simple illusion that COULD be either. As is, it's a "D" and a "C" literally stitched to a white ball. It's too literal, too naturalistic, and too clever for it's own good.

Other tips.......you must use a simpler, thicker, and more consistent lineweight font and modify it. Preferably you'd make custom letters. And please, for heaven's sake......worry about getting it perfect before posting giant ballcap versions.

It seems like you've got the basis for a real nice logo concept. Don't get hung up patting yourself on the back at stage 1. Believe me, we've ALL had an equivalent inspiration. Going from that to a field-quality is a rare feat.

Good luck.

[FiddySicks]

true enough they arent that exciting but at the same time those designs are made so they dont look like glorified clip art... those mlb designs are done just plain better... your lines are too thin and it already looks cluttered so thicker lines would make it worse... not saying its not a good idea im just saying your execution is off...

You hit the nail on the head my friend. I will admit it is getting better but it still is a long way off.

And BTW BringBackTheVet, Thanks i think...........

[VitaminD]

I'm with Sterling on this one. It has the potential to be a very unique concept, but it needs some retooling.

My biggest issues are:

1. The font you used just doesn't look right on a baseball cap. Times New Roman has a variable thickness along the lengths of its curved portions. Using a font with a more even width along the curves would be easier to use.

2. The blue outline of the baseball is as thick as the monogram letters. Almost all of the negative space inside the "D" is full of baseball and baseball outline, which takes away from the "D" in" "DC". Ditch the outline on the ball, or at least make it very thin. With minimal/no outline on the ball, the letters would be the only thing in the contrasting blue (on the red cap), and they'd stand out much better.

3. The ball is wider than the letters, and just as big. It looks as if you could not decide what your focal point is going to be here - the letters or the ball. The best part of this idea is the way you blended the letters into matching curves for baseball stitching. No other team could do that. But the letters/stitches should be the primary focus, and less attention should be devoted to the baseball. Make the ball smaller (and drop its outline, see #2), so that the "D" and "C" stand out... and when you follow the curves of the letters onto the baseball, you notice how they subtly became the stitches, and it becomes more of an "AHA! Look at that!" impression, instead of a mishmash of a few elements stacked on top of each other.

[Swiss]

Ah, talking about Times New Roman, I always dislike the font used in the lettering for the jerseys of Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins.

Oh, you see, both expansion franchises at the same time! Maybe, same designer...

[lopernv]

I found an optical illusion. Scroll up, and then down, and keep reapeating, and look at the stiches.

[DarthMan]

Whoa!

Couple things---

1) The D and C are WAY too thin. Make em thicker.

2) What's with the disclaimer ( i.e. different color "N")

[P.I.L.L.]

Thanks for the constructive criticism... it seems like it'd be simple enough to get this one right, yet, I've gone back and forth w/ various fonts / thicknesses / colors, etc... quite frustrating...yet, I think it's substantially improved...

revised 7-31