Jump to content

Padres Unis. Anyone notice anything?


PadreHomer

Recommended Posts

Upgrade! But yeah, the plain white SD never looked right to me. They need to slap some sand on that beeotch.

Yeah I was just thinking that this afternoon. Everyone complains that the Nats W doesnt match anything in their set, but why no complaint on how off the Padres home hat is? It matches NOTHING. The font is way different than the stylized wordmark and theres not even any sand to balace it out. I say they need to take the road hat and either just use that as the primary, or do a reverse for the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so this is now the third different color used to underline 'Padres' in this the new uniforms? First it was light blue, then dark blue, now sandy. I believe that's true, if I'm not mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upgrade! But yeah, the plain white SD never looked right to me. They need to slap some sand on that beeotch.

Yeah I was just thinking that this afternoon. Everyone complains that the Nats W doesnt match anything in their set, but why no complaint on how off the Padres home hat is? It matches NOTHING. The font is way different than the stylized wordmark and theres not even any sand to balace it out. I say they need to take the road hat and either just use that as the primary, or do a reverse for the home.

As someone who has made the Washington complaint, the difference for me is that the Padres use a different wordmark on their road jerseys. Having three different designs that compliment each other can look good.

The problem with the Nats is that their uniforms are all standardized - same font on home and road, number styles geared to that font - all angles and bevels, and the sole element that doesn't match is the cap logo.

I do prefer the navy/sand cap, though. Less Dodger-like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the Nats is that their uniforms are all standardized - same font on home and road, number styles geared to that font - all angles and bevels, and the sole element that doesn't match is the cap logo.

I do prefer the navy/sand cap, though. Less Dodger-like.

By the standards of your Nats critique, we can assume you also think the Dodgers have terrible uniforms, which would make it doubly good for the Padres to look less like the Dodgers. :P (Teasing! Teasing!)

Personally, though, I hadn't seen that Dodgers cap resemblance until you mentioned it, and now I'm like slapping my head. It should be obvious that the Padres home cap looks too much like the Dodgers. A tan SD as on the roads is one way to go, but what about putting a taste of the team's light blue in the caps? Bill and button, say, or a light blue drop shadow for the tan SD?

Also, instead of green for the military-themed alts, why not stick with the tan color from the team's already military-themed regular uniforms? A tan cap with a blue SD would rock, and the team could then wear camouflage that actually looks like what the military really wears these days instead of wearing green/black woodland camo that makes the Padres look like extras from the movie Taps. The tan cap might even work with the home uniform.

But the bottom line is that now that I've noticed the Dodgers resemblance on the home cap, it's gotta go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, though, I hadn't seen that Dodgers cap resemblance until you mentioned it, and now I'm like slapping my head. It should be obvious that the Padres home cap looks too much like the Dodgers. A tan SD as on the roads is one way to go, but what about putting a taste of the team's light blue in the caps? Bill and button, say, or a light blue drop shadow for the tan SD?

A light blue button/bill combo might remind too many people of the horrific (IMO) caps the Angels went to early in their Disney years, which not only displaced a great look (the "CA" monogram), but was awful in its own right.

I do, however, agree with 'Wonk's (among others) sentiment about the similarity to the Dodgers (made all the worse by the block monogram pairing with the script wordmark). I prefer the sand "SD", with or without the white outline. (My wife got one, since the monogram spells out her post-marriage initials.) Besides, given their history, a sand/tan monogram would reinforce the past better than plain white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, though, I hadn't seen that Dodgers cap resemblance until you mentioned it, and now I'm like slapping my head. It should be obvious that the Padres home cap looks too much like the Dodgers. A tan SD as on the roads is one way to go, but what about putting a taste of the team's light blue in the caps? Bill and button, say, or a light blue drop shadow for the tan SD?

A light blue button/bill combo might remind too many people of the horrific (IMO) caps the Angels went to early in their Disney years, which not only displaced a great look (the "CA" monogram), but was awful in its own right.

Well, those Angels caps were monstrous for reasons unrelated to the navy/light blue pairing. Don't blame the colors. When the Brooklyn Cyclones first came along, I took to wearing one of their old navy caps with the light blue bill, and it's one of the only caps I've ever owned that could be counted on to generate regular compliments from complete strangers -- and all the other caps I've had that were compliment-magnets have been Ebbets repros. Light blue and navy can work for a ballcap; you just have to do it thoughtfully (and not start with the most craptastic logo any team has used since Ronald Reagan took office).

Oh, and I totally agree about the CA logo, even though it violates my single biggest pet peeve in all of uniform design: Combining location and team initials on one cap. (Actually, I always gave it a bit of a pass on account of California's postal designation being "CA", but that was mere justification. If the Rockies switched names to the "Owls" or something, I still wouldn't like it if they wore a "CO" cap.) The Angels have never looked better than they do now, but that CA cap was a thing of beauty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, though, I hadn't seen that Dodgers cap resemblance until you mentioned it, and now I'm like slapping my head. It should be obvious that the Padres home cap looks too much like the Dodgers. A tan SD as on the roads is one way to go, but what about putting a taste of the team's light blue in the caps? Bill and button, say, or a light blue drop shadow for the tan SD?

A light blue button/bill combo might remind too many people of the horrific (IMO) caps the Angels went to early in their Disney years, which not only displaced a great look (the "CA" monogram), but was awful in its own right.

Well, those Angels caps were monstrous for reasons unrelated to the navy/light blue pairing. Don't blame the colors. When the Brooklyn Cyclones first came along, I took to wearing one of their old navy caps with the light blue bill, and it's one of the only caps I've ever owned that could be counted on to generate regular compliments from complete strangers -- and all the other caps I've had that were compliment-magnets have been Ebbets repros. Light blue and navy can work for a ballcap; you just have to do it thoughtfully (and not start with the most craptastic logo any team has used since Ronald Reagan took office).

Oh, and I totally agree about the CA logo, even though it violates my single biggest pet peeve in all of uniform design: Combining location and team initials on one cap. (Actually, I always gave it a bit of a pass on account of California's postal designation being "CA", but that was mere justification. If the Rockies switched names to the "Owls" or something, I still wouldn't like it if they wore a "CO" cap.) The Angels have never looked better than they do now, but that CA cap was a thing of beauty.

Pairing light and navy blue together is one of the best ideas ever (check the sig if you weren't sure why). I'm not blaming the color combination as much as it makes me think Anaheim Angels first (now, go Carolina blue with navy bill, you're on to something bee-yoo-tee-full) and those wretched caps. The whole Angels design was terrible, and the caps were the best part of it - which is like being the tallest dwarf. I also blame the logo... as well as the faux-vests, poor wordmark and overstyled number font.

And you're aboslutely right about the "CA" monogram being good enough to like despite violating the monogram rule that the Rockies have been doing since their inception. It was just that good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so this is now the third different color used to underline 'Padres' in this the new uniforms? First it was light blue, then dark blue, now sandy. I believe that's true, if I'm not mistaken.

They never used light blue on the home whites. The only time they used a light blue underline was on the 04 BP jerseys.

As far as the hat SD font, its supposed to match with the number font. And I never really had a problem with the white block LA on the dodger's hats, I mean what does that match? What is the STL on the Cardinals had supposed to match?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so this is now the third different color used to underline 'Padres' in this the new uniforms? First it was light blue, then dark blue, now sandy. I believe that's true, if I'm not mistaken.

They never used light blue on the home whites. The only time they used a light blue underline was on the 04 BP jerseys.

As far as the hat SD font, its supposed to match with the number font. And I never really had a problem with the white block LA on the dodger's hats, I mean what does that match? What is the STL on the Cardinals had supposed to match?

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned in the other thread on hidden logos but did anyone else notice that there's also a 'P' in the 'SD' logo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • LMU locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.