Cbj 3rds to be shown oct.13th well tomorow.

[nitroseed]

I vectorized the new logo this morning. If anyone's interested in getting it, email me: brad@nitroseed.net

Edit: I previously stated that I had the secondary logo, however, there are some inconsistencies I'm working out. I'll have it soon.

[Saintsfan]

Jeez there are some people who don't appreciate anything new on this board. These are great in my opinion. Best new hockey jersey I have seen for a while. And what is wrong with the logos.The star thing on the front of the jersey is fine and the blue cap on the shoulder logo gives a clear civil war tie in. Good work CBJs.

[philly97flyer]

http://bluejackets.com/images/200310/2169.f.jpg

heres the link for the shoulder patch logo. it was right on their website photo gallery. u all need to look a little harder lol. by the way, i think the primary 3rd jersey logo looks somewhat like that 2001 avalanche all star game logo. there is some resemblence with the star and swoosh.

[umlegend]

Here's why some of us don't like them...

1) Good jersey pattern, but they took it right from their expansion buddies, the Wild

2) Where does black enter the equation? What would everyone say if for instance, Florida just threw black on their jersey, or the Rangers, or Islanders did it?  What if the Blackhawks or Sabres threw in Navy blue? It is just gross.

3) The cartoony logo is just ok but can work as a secondary. But, if they do what everyone is suggesting and make it their everyday, it would be ridiculous. I didn't even know that was the Ohio state flag until I read it here. It conveys nothing but a star and flag. If the team was the stars or Ohioites, I could see it.

Their primary needs to be the hat with the sticks crossing. I even take issue with that logo as well, though. If the pic on the board is right, then the shadowing is wrong. They have silver swooping around the top of the hat, which is fine. But, if they turn that swoop around, it becomes a "C", as in Columbus. How'd they miss that. Take the hat with the C swoop on it, make that the main logo, keep this as the secondary logo, drop the black, and we're in business.

[bods39]

the black comes from Michael Humes, the exec. VP under

MacClean. He wanted black, he got black. He didn't want

Stinger on the jersey, they took Stinger off.

[umlegend]

How about this as opposed to what they did. I did my best with what I had.(I used Paint, so obviously not too good, you get the idea) This screams of history.

Edit: bigger crest

[Avenger]

I like your jersey better, but I prefer their new crest to the hat logo, although I wouldn't mind seeing the hat logo on both shoulders.

I agree that the black is extremely disappointing. It flat out does not work with navy blue.

[CDunn]

I think the black is nice.  I don't really like the wild's green jersey b/c it is too much green.  This CBJ jersey eliminates that with the addition of black to break up all the blue.  Should the wild add black?No.  But here it works.

 I like the new logo.  It's a nice logo that says ohio,union, and gives a military feel to it, which is exactly what they should have done in the first place rather than go with that CBJ logo.  It could certainly stand some tweaking, but it's a good logo.  I also like the sleeve logo.  Perfect sleeve logo.  I don't think the logo would work if it were not in a cirlce b/c it is rather plain, and it's blue.  The oval makes it work for me.  Good civil war tie-ins with both new logos.  The CBJ has none, and enough though stinger is wearing union gear, it's a friggin' bug.

 Umlegend, I like what you did, though I'd keep the Cstar logo on the front.

 About the Wild template, there are a few things.  First the black hem is larger than the green hem on the wild jersies.  Second, this jersey uses a straight line from neck to cuff while the Wild have a curve around the neck/shoulder area in their trim.  3rd, the cuff is red, but if it were following the Wild pattern, it would be blue.

[Avenger]

I understand the need to break up the blue with another color, but why black? Red or even white would have worked, but black? Not only is it not one of their colors, but it also clashed with navy blue.

From what Bods was saying, it sounds like bullheadedness at the top, which turns out to be my biggest pet peeve working in the design industry. Sometimes higher-ups (who are not designers, creative, or artistic) get what they think is a good idea and disregard the expertise of the people that are working for them. I would hope that whomever designed that jersey at least mildly protested the use of black. I would hope no one that gets to do this professionaly would have wanted it that way.

[CDunn]

agreed, red would be the best choice, but certainly not white.  I hate white/silver sleeves on a dark jersey.  Clashes.  have a real color there.   Atleast they didn't totally sell out and have a black jersey.  I think the black provides the needed contrast while still keeping the jersey template simple and rather subdued.  Actually, the more that I think about it, red sleeves or any other color than black or navy would have made this design really busy.  2 very different colors with major roles with 3 stars, numbers, and a shoulder logo on each arm.  However, with a color that is different, but not too different from the main body, the sleeves seem less busying and your attention isn't stuck there.

[Brian in Boston]

Sabres 7200...

You claim that the Blue Jackets now have "Good civil war tie-ins with both new logos". Both? How do you come to that conclusion?

I'll grant you that the secondary (shoulder patch) logo on the new 3rd jerseys features a Union Army soldiers' cap. Okay... there's ONE Civil War tie-in.

However, the primary mark on the new 3rd jerseys features a stylized rendering of the state flag of Ohio wrapping around a five-pointed star. So, we know the team is from Ohio (at least those of us who are familiar with the design of the Ohio flag)... and we know that their is an American/patriotic theme to the team's identity. However,  exactly what about this logo is so Civil War-related? How is it more Civil War-related than the "CBJ" logo that you claim has no direct connection to the "War Between the States"?

Look, I understand that many of you hated the "Stinger" idea? (I'll again point out that at least he was wearing a clearly discernible Union Army uniform... which, frankly, connects more to the Civil War than the 3rd jersey primary logo.) I'll admit that the "CBJ" logo looks like a bland rush-job that was churned out when team management had second-thoughts about "Stinger".

However, simply because the primary logo on the new 3rds is more appealing to you, doesn't mean that it automatically has a tie-in to the Civil war. It DOESN'T! It's specifically Ohio-related (if you recognize the flag) and generically American-themed. Period.

Brian in Boston

[CDunn]

Your right.  What I should a said is that this 3rd logo says "bluejackets" to me more than the CBJ logo.  Fighting groups were commonly broken down into state groupings, then even further into regiments and such.  When a regiment would go into battle, they would carry their state flag along with the flag of the side they're fighting for, be it Union or Confederacy.  You said yourself that it let's us know that the team is from Ohio, just like an army regiment being quickly defined as a group from Ohio on the field of battle. The logo has the state flag almost draped over the silver star, a common symbol of the US, showing(at least to me) the alliengence of Ohio to the Union.  Had they put an old georgia flag over a common confederate symbol(I can't think of one), I'd be inclined to think about the Rebels.  Was this intended by the designer?  Probably not, but that is just what I see.  

 I didn't like Stinger for 2 reasons.  One:  The bug has nothing to do with the meaning of the name, but only represents  fictional insect like a yellow jacket.  It's disrespectful.  Second:  I am against putting a mascot on a jersey(WildWing), and an overly minor league, cartoony one at that.  Stinger is fine for a mascot, but don't make it a logo.  Neon green should have never been in the color scheme.

[Brian in Boston]

Sabres7200...

One good thing has come of this entire Blue Jackets' uniform/logo discussion: It's actually spurred me to focus my attention on one of the most inane claims that sports marketers, athletes, journalists and fans ever make.

I have to laugh whenever I hear claims that a team name/logo is intended to "honor" a group of people. For instance, in this case, how is naming a team in a pro sports league an "honor" to Ohio's Civil War/Union Army dead?

Professional sports are an entertainment - nothing more, nothing less. They are, quite simply, a frivolous diversion. By contrast, thousands of Ohioans laid down their lives fighting to preserve the Union of American States that their home state happened to belong to - its values, laws, traditions and people. Where's the connection?

How, in God's name, can anyone believe that naming a sports team after (in this case) these soldiers is anything but a crass and shameless attempt to "paint" a form of entertainment as more important than it actually is? It's  a self-important form of self-indulgence. Ludicrous! The argument can be made that attempting to "honor" war dead by naming an ENTERTAINMENT venture after them, is demeaning to the memory of the dead in and of itself.

In the history of pro sports, you could make the argument that naming the Cleveland Browns after Paul Brown was a legitimate honor. I mean, after all, Paul Brown had committed his life/career to the pursuit of perfection in the field of pro football. So, given that he had dedicated himself to a career in this particular field of entertainment, he likely found the team name an honor. However, Stinger or not, where is the crowning "glory" in having an ice hockey team named after you? I mean, really...

Brian in Boston

[CDunn]

I find the honor thing frustrating, too.  And I'm not trying to imply that stinger was tarnishing the "honor" the name intended.  But the team is named for union soldiers and they have a ficticious, neon, cartoon bug on their jerseys.  Just doesn't seem right.

My history was a bit off, but this excerpt I found on nhl.com helps explain a little.

 "The showcase element of the Third Jersey is a new logo inspired by the state flag of Ohio, with its unique pennant shape, red, white & blue colors and white stars, in the shape of the letter C. That image overlays the familiar Blue Jackets' star, which signifies Columbus as the state's capital. The official state flag of Ohio, called the Ohio burgee, is based upon the pennant used by the Ohio cavalry from 1862-65."

[Roger Clemente]

I find people are looking way too much into this jersey.  It seems like Columbus was trying to do something cool and you people are crucifying them just for trying.

In my opinion, this is a jersey that just looks great. Incorporates everything from their LOGOS nicely.

The way I see it, it;s just a progression of their home and road jerseys, only with thin Team Belarus-esque piping to separate the sleeves. (Trust me, they more resemble Belarus than Minnesota.) That's my main beef with their regular blue jerseys, their sleeves have nothing to them except for half a red cuff.

What is so wrong with wanting to honor someone of something? I'm sure if the wilderness of Minnesota could talk, they'd thank them. I'm sure if that sabretooth tiger fossil could talk, it'd thank Nashville.

The most important thing of all is that the jersey is blue. No seriously. As long as it's blue, that's all that really matters.  I'm dead serious when I say this.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[NJTank]

The More I see the New Blue Jackets 3rd Jersey The More I like it. This jersye is much better then their rgualr jersyes and the logos on the shoulder and the front are much better then their main logos.

[Reaper98]

What would be cool on that jersey would be if they replaced black with Dark Navy dazzle.  It would be in the same manner that the red Team Canada 1998 Olympic jerseys where the sleeves were red dazzle with black cuffs with white trim.  The same colours, just a different luminosity to create more visual breaks.

[-kj]

That recolour is pretty sweet.  That makes it look much, much better.

[umlegend]

Anything I can do to help.  Yeah, even with the star logo, thered would look better than the black.  Please, someone, fire the man that demanded black!  What about the touch of gray I used?  Anyone like or hate it?

[Brian in Boston]

Sorry about yanking a topic back on to the first page after it has already shifted to the second. However, I wanted to address a couple of points that were made about the Columbus Blue Jackets' new 3rd jerseys... and I've only just gotten around to reading some thoughts that were posted in reaction to a couple of my original statements.

First of all, to tajmccall...

No. I wasn't trying to say that the neon-green bug (i.e. Stinger) depicted the plight of Ohioans in the Civil War more than the 3rd jersey primary logo. I AM saying that the UNIFORM Stinger was wearing in the logo was a depiction of the uniform of a Union Army soldier. Thus, the original Stinger logo contained more of a TIE-IN to the Columbus Blue Jackets' Civil War theme than the primary mark on the new 3rd jersey. Frankly speaking, naming a team the Blue Jackets and designing a logo aren't going to do anything to depict the plight of (or honor) those Ohioans who gave their life during the Civil War. It's a foolish claim. That's why the entire Blue Jackets' identity package itself is flawed. If anything, the argument can be made that it demeans the Civil War veterans' memory by trying to create a link between a frivolous modern sports entertainment venture and the most divisive and bloody episode in our country's history. Assenine in the extreme.

Secondly, to Sabres 7200...

Historically speaking, the flag depicted on the Blue Jackets' 3rd was NOT in use during the Civil War. It was NOT the state flag of Ohio at the time, nor was it the flag used by any of Ohio's Civil War cavalry units. Check out the following site for details:

www.ohiohistory.org/etcetera/exhibits/fftc/relicroom

In any event, the press release from nhl.com, which you site, supports this with its clever use of the terms "inspired by" and "based upon". In other words, the flag in the logo is INNACURATE, i.e. really has NOTHING to do with Ohio in the Civil War. So, how does that tie-in to the Blue Jackets' supposed Civil War theme? It DOESN'T. If the Blue Jackets organization is hell-bent on perpetuating this claim of "honoring" and "recognizing" the contribution of Ohio's soldiers in the Civil War, then the least that NHL Properties and SME Branding could have done was research and create a historically accurate logo. Instead, they chose to fudge the facts. Which might be acceptable if we weren't dealing with an issue as important as the Civil War. Again, why attempt to tie that theme into a modern pro sports identity? It's foolish to try and do so.

Technically speaking, the flag on the 3rd jersey isn't even the Ohio state flag NOW. The Ohio burgee has 17 stars on it: The 13 stars on one side of the red disc represent the original 13 colonies... the 4 stars on the opposite side of the red disc, in combination with the other 13 stars, add up to 17 - signifying Ohio's place as the 17th state admitted to the Union. The flag on the Blue Jackets' 3rd has only 12 stars on it.

Is the logo on the Blue Jackets' 3rd slick? Professionally rendered? A clever logo? Yes, on all three counts. Is it Ohio-specific? Well, that depends on whether you think that the artists should have actually bothered to render the state flag accurately. Does it serve the Blue Jackets' Civil War theme any better than either Stinger's Union Army uniform or the CBJ "ribbons-and-sticks" mish-mash. No.  

Brian in Boston