Sign in to follow this  
oldschoolvikings

Question for PANTONE

Recommended Posts

Is there any way we can see a direct comparison between the current Astors colors and the new Diamondbacks colors? Now that I've had to look at them for a month or so, I guess you can see a slight difference in the reds, but I wish it had been more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ArizonaDiamondbacks_FRC_9999_SOL.jpg

HoustonAstros_FRC_9999_SOL.jpg

Yeah, I thought the Dbacks looked more reddish than the Stros. I guess the Stros' color is closer to brown. So, glad that's cleared up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too close. The colour scheme fits for the Dbacks, but not for the Astros. They really need to go back to this thing of beauty:

nl_1999_houston.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too close. The colour scheme fits for the Dbacks, but not for the Astros. They really need to go back to this thing of beauty:

nl_1999_houston.gif

Change the colors to the old blue and orange and you have a winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget this "beauty":

090898johnson_550x430.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!!! Still a lttle too close for me. Sand? For both? You would think somebody would've shot this down.

If there was any sense at all, the "Olde Weste" scheme for a team named "Astros" would have been shot down in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Astros CAN'T go back to that old navy blue and gold look.

Don't get me wrong. It was awesome. Best they've ever had.

And their old west them, it's dumb.

But while the look isn't permanent, their old school (and dumb, gimmicky) ballpark is somewhat permanent. They need a look that fits their park.

What they need to do is come up with a new set inspired by these traditional but still modern themed beauties:

nl_1970_houston.gif

nl_1971_houston.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Astros CAN'T go back to that old navy blue and gold look.

Don't get me wrong. It was awesome. Best they've ever had.

And their old west them, it's dumb.

But while the look isn't permanent, their old school (and dumb, gimmicky) ballpark is somewhat permanent. They need a look that fits their park.

What they need to do is come up with a new set inspired by these traditional but still modern themed beauties:

nl_1970_houston.gif

nl_1971_houston.gif

Absolutely agree.

MorganHou.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Astros CAN'T go back to that old navy blue and gold look.

Don't get me wrong. It was awesome. Best they've ever had.

And their old west them, it's dumb.

But while the look isn't permanent, their old school (and dumb, gimmicky) ballpark is somewhat permanent. They need a look that fits their park.

No, the Astros don't NEED to have a look that fits the park. Fenway Park has light-green interior walls and the Red Sox wear navy blue and red on a regular basis. Coors Field is mostly forest green seats and the Rockies wear black and purple. And Chase Field has green seats, and the Diamondbacks just switched to red and black. Uniforms matching the facility isn't necessary. The Astros NEEDED a new logo when they moved into the new park, only because the three Astros logos they had from 1965-99 all had the Astrodome or some reference to it. But they could have kept the colors dark blue and gold or gone back to dark blue and orange.

Houston's look now is fine, but as a lifelong Astros fan, I don't look at brick and sand and think "Astros." They had dark blue and orange for 32 seasons and it was an identity (even if it burned a lot of retinas along the way). Then Drayton McLane mucked it up when he bought the team and changed the logo and dropped orange for gold in 1994. The switch to brick and sand just made things worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Astros CAN'T go back to that old navy blue and gold look.

Don't get me wrong. It was awesome. Best they've ever had.

And their old west them, it's dumb.

But while the look isn't permanent, their old school (and dumb, gimmicky) ballpark is somewhat permanent. They need a look that fits their park.

No, the Astros don't NEED to have a look that fits the park. Fenway Park has light-green interior walls and the Red Sox wear navy blue and red on a regular basis. Coors Field is mostly forest green seats and the Rockies wear black and purple. And Chase Field has green seats, and the Diamondbacks just switched to red and black. Uniforms matching the facility isn't necessary. The Astros NEEDED a new logo when they moved into the new park, only because the three Astros logos they had from 1965-99 all had the Astrodome or some reference to it. But they could have kept the colors dark blue and gold or gone back to dark blue and orange.

I don't mean the colors have to match the colors of the facility.

The theme of the jerseys should fit in with the theme of the stadium though. They now play in a super retro old west style ballpark. Their current look fits that, but it unfortunately contradicts the name in about every way possible.

They need to find an old school type of look that fits their old school type of ballpark, but still tie it into the futuristic style name of Astros. The uniforms I posted did just that when they played in an old style ballpark. Bringing those back wouldn't be a good choice though, but they could certainly use them for inspiration.

I think it's great when the ballpark's colors match the teams colors, but that's just not what I meant at all. Stadiums have certain colors that just work for them, but a franchise can as a whole have a theme to their identity. The Astros have that right now except for their name, which just happens to be a giant part of the identity. They need to better tie everything together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Diamondbacks red almost looks purplish during day games, I think.

It's actually pretty close to the shade at least some classical scholars believe was worn by the Roman senatorial class as a mark of rank -- and that color is popularly remembered as "purple." So there you go. Someone tell Ottawa that the D-Backs have their color.

Anyway, I wonder if anyone here is familiar enough with today's Houston to comment on how culturally significant NASA's local presence is for the city these days. Do people still take pride that they live in NASA's headquarters city, or is that a non-issue in modern Houston? I think that should determine what kind of identity the team has, not what "Astros" means to people who live elsewhere. I mean, at this point for non-Houston people the space program is almost as distant a memory as the Old West anyway. Humans haven't done anything meaningful in space since about 1972, after all, and "space age" is a term of ironic nostalgia for an era that has nearly passed from living memory. I'm old enough to remember Skylab; I've met several of the men who walked on the moon; but no astronaut in my lifetime has even really left the earth's atmosphere.

Anyway, if NASA's local presence isn't that big a deal to folks in Houston, and "Astros" is just a team name like "Mets" or "Lakers," then the team probably should match its visual identity to its ballpark. But if NASA's local presence is still a defining characteristic of Houston for locals, and "Astros" makes people think mainly of their city's role in the space program, then the team probably should adopt a more "space age-y" visual identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting criteria, but I'm not sure I agree.

"Lakers" is almost universally panned as a name for LA, and "Mets" seems an odd choice, since it doesn't really refer to anything specific. "Astros" has a very specific name, which refers to Houston's historical role if nothing else. It isn't as generic as "Mets".

So long as they use the name, they really ought to have a scheme that doesn't clash with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting criteria, but I'm not sure I agree.

"Lakers" is almost universally panned as a name for LA, and "Mets" seems an odd choice, since it doesn't really refer to anything specific. "Astros" has a very specific name, which refers to Houston's historical role if nothing else. It isn't as generic as "Mets".

So long as they use the name, they really ought to have a scheme that doesn't clash with it.

But Mets is short for Metropolitans!

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Diamondbacks red almost looks purplish during day games, I think.

Perhaps you were watching a game from last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone tell Ottawa that the D-Backs have their color.

It's not the same shade of Red.

It is however, the same as "Buccaneers Red"...

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting criteria, but I'm not sure I agree.

"Lakers" is almost universally panned as a name for LA, and "Mets" seems an odd choice, since it doesn't really refer to anything specific. "Astros" has a very specific name, which refers to Houston's historical role if nothing else. It isn't as generic as "Mets".

So long as they use the name, they really ought to have a scheme that doesn't clash with it.

OK, I'll play along.

First point, the Dodgers have probably the most local-culture-specific name in the big leagues. But over time, the name has become divorced from its origins, and now it's just a team name. You say "Dodgers" and people don't think of the trolley-filled streets of turn-of-the-century Brooklyn. They think of a baseball team. Or the Royals, who thanks to you I now know were named very specifically after a cattle market in Kansas City. Surely you also believe that the Royals should change their color scheme to something more in line with beef cattle, yes? Red and brown, say, or chestnut and ivory. Or perhaps instead you believe that despite the very specific original meaning of the name Royals, now the name primarily designates the baseball team, not the thing the team was named after.

Given that the manned space program after which the Astros are named is about as meaningful to Americans today -- and as futuristic -- as the electric trolley cars of old Brooklyn or the cattle yards of old KC, alas, it seems entirely plausible to me that "Astros" has become just another team name, like Dodgers or Royals. Even if you and I might be old enough to remember the space age.

Second point, the Astros do have a color scheme that doesn't clash with the space-program sense of the name "Astros." Black: The color of space itself. Deep red: the color of Mars, of Jupiter's Great Red Spot, of red giant stars and countless nebulae, and of many of the moons of the outer Solar System. Light tan, the color of, um Venus and some moon rocks. OK, the sand isn't great, but it's an accent color, and anyway it's close to gold, which would stand in well for the brilliance of the stars. Point is, the Astros colors do not at all clash with the idea of a space-based team identity. Really, the team should just change its official color names to Interstellar Black, Mars Red, and Lunar Dust. :P

You can give the Astros a name-appropriate color scheme, or you can give them the color blue. But you can't do both.

Someone tell Ottawa that the D-Backs have their color.

It's not the same shade of Red.

It is however, the same as "Buccaneers Red"...

:P

I meant, the shade of red a team named "Senators" ought to wear. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this