Sterling84 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 OK, part of me thinks you're crazy nuts for picking this thing to bits... but the other part of me is just as anal retentive and will point out that the... I guess you would call them "eyebrows" (the little white hashmarks under the horns, but above the eyes) are not symmetrical either.My best guess is that it is intentionally asymmetrical. Just a little off to make it seem more organic. Aaah yes. You refer of course to issue # 13A I have with this ?thing?. The white shapes that in theory define where the antler grows from the scalp.Only these shapes, as you say, appear to the viewer as eyebrows. And not just eyebrows, but upturned ones that would seem to indicate at best curiosity and at worst abject confusion.I?d be willing to buy your hypothesis of intentional asymmetry for the sake of naturalism or a subconscious organic quality? IF all the evidence didn?t spell out that not NEARLY that much thought was put into it in the first place.That wouldn?t account for the stroke width error, the containment space discrepancy, or the shoulder gap issue. So when those instances are taken into consideration it seem implausible that those with the carelessness requisite for these errors would simultaneously possess the foresight necessary to plan such subtleties.I will grant you, however, that upon further examination of the old mark, the ?eyebrows? and snout appear to have been off center all along.So maybe the art department just literally grabbed from the old .ai file and plunked her down in the new document without thought.I find usually when a really talented designer wants to mix in asymmetrical balance he or she almost flaunts the beauty of it though. I?ve never seen anything like this before, where the entire theme of the concept is perfect symmetry and balance, yet two or three random elements are slightly off center ON PURPOSE. If the head is turning, why are the antlers too?I don?t buy it. The Official Cheese-Filled Snack of NASCAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazz013 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 The logos were very sloppily done, and there is no excuse for it. Aside from the things already mentioned, they screwed up a lot of other things, too.The letters ""ILWAUKE" in Milwaukee are missing the beveling on the upper left serif.The letters "MILWAKEE" in Milwaukee are missing their lower beveling.The angle for the bevel is completely arbitrary; you'd thing the two Us in "MILWAUKEE BUCKS" would look the same, but they don't.The entire plaque in the primary is skewed to the right about a degreeThe plaque contains way too many points for just having eight straight lines.The word "Milwaukee" isn't centered over "uck" in the primary, well, it is, but it isn't. The K extends further right on the bottom than it does the top, unlike the U, so it looks like it's off center. They should have angled the serif on the K like it is on the U.The plaque itself isn't centered over the triangle.The angle of the manual serifs change from letter to letter, and are sometime omitted where they were on other letters (Ks).There is a hideous stroke differential between the buck where it's on the triangle and off of the triangle - it's more noticeable on the buck's left side.The stroke on the buck left a couple small holes between the antlers and ears that should be filled.The letters are all different heights and on different base lines. Save the slugalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fonz Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Ya, looks like they screwed up quite a bit, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simpsontide Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Did anyone notice the new secondary logo? After you click the link,check the top right hand corner and look at it. Inverted triangle with the old style basketball (green) with silver antlers. Looks okay.http://www.nba.com/bucks/news/NewLogoQA_060628.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling84 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I just saw one of the T-shirts they've passed out to season ticket holders.All the same errors are present.That AND these were probably rushed cause the screens aren't lined up very well at all.LOOKIN' GOOD! The Official Cheese-Filled Snack of NASCAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlfan452 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 This new logo and color scheme flat out BLOWS!!! I swear, Herb Kohl must be color-blind! I can't believe they spent 2 years on this crappy modification! The new lettering makes me want to put on a pair of :censored: kickers! I can't believe I'm saying this but the purple and green looks much better to me. They should have just changed their uniforms and kept the colors and make purple a secondary color. I just pray to God that they don't put BUCKS with gigantic lettering on the front of their unis'. The Bucks, in my opinion, still have the ugliest logo in the NBA!Sorry about the rant, I'm just pissed to see this franchise not put any creativity into modifying their logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I think the NBA must have a rule about overhauling the logos. The recolors outnumber the new designs. Why would the Utah Jazz just take the paint bucket tool to their existing logo and go to two-tone blue? I DON'T GET IT ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Has anyone done a direct comparison between the old Bucks logo and the reincarnation?Maybe the mistakes were present in the old one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorpeligro Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 I think the NBA must have a rule about overhauling the logos. The recolors outnumber the new designs. Why would the Utah Jazz just take the paint bucket tool to their existing logo and go to two-tone blue? I DON'T GET IT It's easier/cheaper for merchants, printers, t-shirt makers, etc. if you have a logo with only 3-4 distinct colors. The Miami Heat logo originally used to feature a red/orange light-to-dark blend, but, since 2000, now features distinct red areas and yellow areas. If you look across all of the pro sports leagues, team logos generally have 4 colors or less (with a few exceptions, of course). The current Utah Jazz logo has 4 colors: two shades of blue, silver, and purple. By my count, the previous Jazz logo had 6 colors: gold, purple, light blue, dark grey, light grey, and black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Here's a comparison I put together of the Bucks' logos:I threw the old "Bango" logo in there for the heck of it.And yes - I agree with the last poster - gradients are being phased out of most identity packages...too hard to reproduce, too hard to embroider.You should see the logo spec sheet for that old Miami Heat logo...it was a MESS to reproduce... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 The current Utah Jazz logo has 4 colors: two shades of blue, silver, and purple. By my count, the previous Jazz logo had 6 colors: gold, purple, light blue, dark grey, light grey, and black. Just noticed this...here are the actual colors used by the Jazz:No Gray...just Purple, Light Blue, Green, Copper, Black and White....and again, for the heck of it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 They should ahve made the eyes on the new buck red. With the green it looks confused, with red it would look utterly enraged. On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cibivxx Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Can anyone tell me what font the new logo uses? Id appreciate it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Probably a custom font, though varsity serif will get you close enough. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cibivxx Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Probably a custom font, though varsity serif will get you close enough. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorpeligro Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 The current Utah Jazz logo has 4 colors: two shades of blue, silver, and purple. By my count, the previous Jazz logo had 6 colors: gold, purple, light blue, dark grey, light grey, and black. Just noticed this...here are the actual colors used by the Jazz:No Gray...just Purple, Light Blue, Green, Copper, Black and White.Well, then, it looks like I was wrong . . . there are actually SEVEN colors in the old Jazz logo:I was referring the number of colors in the logo, not the number of official team colors. There are clearly two shades of gray between the light blue and the purple in the "JAZZ" wordmark. The colors were probably considered to be too trivial to be listed as official team colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyHubCaps Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 At first I thought that the Bucks would downplay the fact that they look like Christmas colors, but then they drafted a guy named "Noel." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Well, then, it looks like I was wrong . . . there are actually SEVEN colors in the old Jazz logo:...I was referring the number of colors in the logo, not the number of official team colors. There are clearly two shades of gray between the light blue and the purple in the "JAZZ" wordmark. The colors were probably considered to be too trivial to be listed as official team colors. There isn't any Gray at all. What you're seeing is a gradient effect of the Purple.Here's a color optimized version (from the official artwork): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorpeligro Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 There isn't any Gray at all. What you're seeing is a gradient effect of the Purple.Here's a color optimized version (from the official artwork):Interesting . . . but if a printer were to put the logo on a white t-shirt, wouldn't he print the logo using the non-optimized, 7-color version (i.e., the way it is posted on Creamer's website)? Maybe someone on this board has a t-shirt or pennant with the logo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Interesting. But if a printer were to put the logo on a white t-shirt, wouldn't he print the logo using 7 colors (i.e., the way it is posted on Creamer's website)? Maybe someone on this board has a t-shirt or pennant with the logo? I've got the official Logo Reproduction sheet right next to me here at my desk...there was a "Special Application" version of this logo as well...it eliminated the gradient and made it solid Purple:Most logos with gradients have options like this (Golden State, Philadelphia, et al).In this Reproduction Guideline sheet (separated by color), the Purple plate clearly shows the tint/screen on the gradient area.Oh - and there is a slight gradient in the Light Blue portion of the logo as well. The Light Blue and Purple meet in the middle in lighter tints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.