xylograph Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Since W&M's old logo, seen below:was deemed offensive by the NCAA (and that's another topic for another day), the College spent 18 months and lots of money to develop the new logo, which was unveiled yesterday (12/6):Opinion seems to be pretty universal... most alumni hate it, especially considering how long it took to come up with. I understand that someone felt that the upside down "W" as an "M" would make the logo look symmetrical, but unfortunately I think it just looks, well, like an upside down "W". I don't mind the new logo, but it certainly does not inspire. I think the logo looks like it was developed by a business school professor who had the idea that all modern logos should look good emblazoned on company buildings and golf shirts.Here's an article about the new logo and the history of W&M logosAnyway, I'd be interested in your honest opinions. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I like the idea, but if they were going to go that route they should have made it a true ambigram. Otherwise you're left with a goofy "M" for no reason.They've had some good logos in the past:I really like the interlocking letters from the 1943 crest, or the 1973 side-by-sides. I also really love the version with the weathervane, but that wouldn't work so well for athletics.I don't like the one they just replaced - the overlapping letters make for a silhouette that's far too busy. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agentrygraphics Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I agree with the alumnae....disappointing at best considering this has been in the works for quite some time. That thin gold stroke will not be seen from further away than five feet. "This isn't just the Oregon Ducks, it's Football's Future Turf Soldier War Hero Steel Robot Tech Flex Machine Army." -CS85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefrsn Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Upside down W doesn't read well as an M. Pretty plain. Nobody will be saying Phoenix Design used the same look on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallWonk Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 One should never take alumni design complaints seriously. Basically 95 percent of all alumni will always hate any change from what the school looked like when they were students. It's pure knee-jerk reactionism, and it's pretty much the reason schools hold Homecoming weeks: It keeps the damned alumni off campus the other 51 weeks.I say as an aging, grumpy alumnus of two universities.Anyway, how is the fact that the M and the W are flipped versions of one another even a legitimate complaint here? The old logo had the same feature. As a U of Minnesota alumnus, the old logo looks to me like a perfectly normal Minnesota-style collegiate M with the M flipped upside down to form the W. I'd have flipped the M horizontally as well, just to make it read a little bit better as an M, but the new logo is a solid modernization of the old. It translates the core concepts of the old logo into a modern visual vernacular, so job well done there.My only issue with this is the size of the ampersand. It's just large enough to be disruptive, but just small enough to look out of place with the other two letters. It's the weak link between the two letters, and has a not-ready-for-prime-time feel.The fundamental question here is how a school named William & Mary ever ended up with an Indian-related identity in the first place, and how it wound up with colors other than orange. Just one of many cases were the Indian-themed school identity needed changing not because it was offensive but because it was lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordie_delini Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 They really could have done better than this. I echo BallWonks comments about the ampersand - it could have looked so much better as negative space between an interlocking W and M. Maybe I'll do a concept for that to show what I mean... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Anyway, how is the fact that the M and the W are flipped versions of one another even a legitimate complaint here? The old logo had the same feature.The difference is that it worked on the old logo because the letters, though the inverse of each other, held their own integrity. This "M" looks really odd, until you realize that they just flipped the "W". The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conesbeans Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 As a former instructor of typography for the art department at a university, I can tell you specifically why the upside-down W in this logo does not work as an M:A serif W does not necessarily need serifs at the bottom to work properly, so the W in this new logo works fine.But a serif M such as this one does need serifs at the top to work properly, and when this W is turned upside-down, it does not have the necessary serifs at the top.So it's not just a matter of it not looking right -- it actually IS not right.And that's the designer's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xylograph Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 The fundamental question here is how a school named William & Mary ever ended up with an Indian-related identity in the first place, and how it wound up with colors other than orange. Just one of many cases were the Indian-themed school identity needed changing not because it was offensive but because it was lazy.You're talking out of your backside, BallWonk. This is NOT one of those cases of laziness, as your "fundamental question" has an answer. The school was initially chartered in 1618 to have an Indian branch, and served as an Indian school for many years. The College changed its identity not because it was offensive, but because it didn't want to use the monumental resources necessary to fight the NCAA over their politically correct stance that the two feathers were offensive. How those two feathers were offensive, yet FSU's logo and mascot are not, is a discussion that I don't care to get into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbasalmon Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 The fundamental question here is how a school named William & Mary ever ended up with an Indian-related identity in the first place, and how it wound up with colors other than orange. Just one of many cases were the Indian-themed school identity needed changing not because it was offensive but because it was lazy.You're talking out of your backside, BallWonk. This is NOT one of those cases of laziness, as your "fundamental question" has an answer. The school was initially chartered in 1618 to have an Indian branch, and served as an Indian school for many years. The College changed its identity not because it was offensive, but because it didn't want to use the monumental resources necessary to fight the NCAA over their politically correct stance that the two feathers were offensive. How those two feathers were offensive, yet FSU's logo and mascot are not, is a discussion that I don't care to get into.Um, as it displays fairly prominently in some of the previous logos, The College of William & Mary was officially chartered in 1693. Just a cursory glance at the William & Mary website reveals that 1618 was only the date of the first attempt to Christianize the "savages" and it was abandoned after a massacre in 1622. In this instance, I think that usage of the nickname "Tribe" is a little presumptous. As for the new logo, it just looks a little too cute in the mirror image department. Someone definitely tried too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEAD! Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I think they should have just taken out the ampersand, so that way the logo will look the same way right-side-up and upside-down I saw, I came, I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 ...which is kinda what I said. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEAD! Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 ...which is kinda what I said. well.... yeah.... it needs to be repeated. I saw, I came, I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshawaggie Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 yay! more ditching of yellow gold for easy listening gold [/sarcasm] @josh_j12 CFA- Fargo Bobcats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 The need to remove a couple of feathers is pretty ridiculous...but if I remember correctly, it was a result of having to change the nickname.That being said...the new logo is okay at best. Very clean and symmetrical....but very sanitized and boring. I disagree with the need to remove the ampersand. I think that without it you are left with an overly linear repetitive borefest. The curls and roundness of the ampersand is what breaks things up and gives the logo just enough to make it look 'Eh' as opposed to 'Meh'.Big difference in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I agree that the ampersand doesn't work in this logo, but it's also the best thing about the logo. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I agree that the ampersand doesn't work in this logo, but it's also the best thing about the logo.Have you been listening to political debates or something? Romney would be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtCarp Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I really don't like the NCAA's rules regarding logos with Native American features. For the most part, these logos are not designed or intended to offend the tribes. You don't see Irish people getting mad at Notre Dame, or Scottish people fuming over NJIT's Highlander, and the NCAA doesn't make restrictions on those things, so why just Native Americans?As for the logo, it's a downgrade IMO. I've never been fond of logos that are solely letters without pictures, and this is no exception. The reason I am on this earth-Nicole VaidisovaBarack and Roll!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallWonk Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I agree that the ampersand doesn't work in this logo, but it's also the best thing about the logo.Have you been listening to political debates or something?Actually, I agree with Gothamite on this one. If the rest of the logo matched the ampersand, and if the ampersand were incorporated properly, this would be a better logo.As a matter of fact, I was in favor of the ampersand before I was against it. It just depends on what the meaning of & is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That's what you get for misunderestimain' me, surge. You're either with me or agin' me.Heh heh heh... The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.