Logos You Didn't Know They Had

[ferrousoxide66]

I find the DC mark to be more relevant to this club than the W. I think the W should be the one put to pasture, in regards to the current incaranation of this club.

Naah, i'm the opposite. I find the "W" to be the better logo since it has the history behind it.

Here's the rub, though - the Walgreens' W has almost no history behind it....

Almost No History > No History

That being said, the curly W has been injected with a history it didn't earn because it was used throughout the hiatus between the Senators' departure and the Nationals' arrival. Even though it was only used by the Senators for about 8 years (IIRC), it is treated as if it was in use for about 40 years. That false history helps fuel the perception that it is an iconic symbol of Washington baseball.

As for "Washington" vs. "DC", in my experience, someone living in Bethesda, Silver Spring, etc. may say they live in Washington to an out-of-towner. However, I've never known anyone living outside the District to say they are from "DC" or "the District." Therefore, I think it is fair to say that, at least in theory, the W represents a broader geographic area than the DC (even if they actually represent the same place).

I've lived in Bethesda my whole life, and I always say I'm from DC, without any hesitation.

Didn't you used to be some big Orioles fan?

I'm still a bit of an Orioles fan, but I find the Nationals to be far more organized and willing to win than the Orioles have been for the last 11 years. It's not so much the winning - it's the fact that I can enjoy watching a team without laughing about how pathetic they are.

Really? Wow, the Orioles must be the pits because the Nats are the last franchise i'd think of as "organized". Bare-bones, half-assed, barely-above farm-team level, yes. Organized? Sheesh. Get Angelos OUT!

[BallWonk]

I'm still a bit of an Orioles fan, but I find the Nationals to be far more organized and willing to win than the Orioles have been for the last 11 years. It's not so much the winning - it's the fact that I can enjoy watching a team without laughing about how pathetic they are.

Really? Wow, the Orioles must be the pits because the Nats are the last franchise i'd think of as "organized". Bare-bones, half-assed, barely-above farm-team level, yes. Organized? Sheesh. Get Angelos OUT!

That just goes to show that you're not paying attention. The Nats have built one of the best scouting and farm systems in baseball, they field an acceptable team capable of making a run at .500 (and they significantly played the spoiler in last seasons Mets/Phillies race), and they seem to have institutionalized an ability to help "troubled" players turn their lives around. From an organizational level, the Nats of today compare well with the Twins of seven years ago. Except with more money and a deeper bench. I'd just as soon have a different GM, but the one thing you cannot accuse the Kasten-era Nats of is disorganization. The front office does not always act with supreme competence, but its discipline is impressive.

That said, I want a new W (not gonna happen) or I want the DC to become the permanent road cap (especially not gonna happen). Another option would be developing a new jersey design that better integrates with the W, which I am told by a source is a distinct possibility on a three-year horizon.

[BrySmalls]

I've never seen so many people bicker about the "W" and the "DC" present on the jerseys, helmets, and main logos. What really gets me every time I wear my Nats jersey is the "Established 1905" patch as it should read 2005 or 1969 (as they were the Expos then). Simply put, the Washington Nationals have really tried hard to fit in right off the bat with the fanbase in the D.C. Area that their main identity is being lost in translation and nostalgia.

[NEW.ERA]

St Louis Blues never used this jersey

[josh_cat_eyes]

St Louis Blues never used this jersey

I cant blame them! I remember hearing a story one time though that they were set to use those for like a game or two but the coach at the time said he would rather give up two points than go out on the ice with them on. I think I would do the same thing!

[BrySmalls]

St Louis Blues never used this jersey

THANK GOD! Before it was gonna be worn on ice, then coach Mike Keenan shot the idea down.

[NEW.ERA]

St Louis Blues never used this jersey

THANK GOD! Before it was gonna be worn on ice, then coach Mike Keenan shot the idea down.

gotta love iron mike

[BallWonk]

I've never seen so many people bicker about the "W" and the "DC" present on the jerseys, helmets, and main logos. What really gets me every time I wear my Nats jersey is the "Established 1905" patch as it should read 2005 or 1969 (as they were the Expos then). Simply put, the Washington Nationals have really tried hard to fit in right off the bat with the fanbase in the D.C. Area that their main identity is being lost in translation and nostalgia.

The solution is to get a new jersey with the inaugural season in Nationals Park patch. Then you won't have to look at that pesky 1905 patch anymore. But you and I are in full agreement about the lameness of the 1905 claim. Even longtime Washington baseball fans didn't get that until it was explained; it looked like a typo.

Personally, I wish the Nats had gone all the way with the fake "established" assertion and used 1859, when the very first Nationals team was organized. Take that, Cincy!

[AsM29]

St Louis Blues never used this jersey

Does anyone have a larger picture of this uniform?

[benpc21]

There are bigger versions on google images, I believe.

[AsM29]

I wonder what the socks would have looked like. My guess would be something similar to the arms?

[josh_cat_eyes]

There are bigger versions on google images, I believe.

That is HORID!!!!!!!!! Whoever made that should be shot!

[fonz]

White Sox:

Red Sox:

Indians:

Tigers:

[riccirulesall]

I kinda actually dig that second Cleveland one, it's kinda cool. And BTW, it's White Sox, not Goodyear.

[chuckymack]

St Louis Blues never used this jersey

Anyone else wonder why in the a team named the 'Blues' would have freaking trumpets on their jersey?! I mean, when I think trumpets, I think of marching bands, jazz ensembles, big band swing and ska.

Blues music is a GUITAR-based genre. Just ask Robert Johnson.

Erego, this conclusion would lead me to believe that whomever designed this has:

A.) No discernable aesthetic sense whatsoever, and

B.) No clue about the music his client's team was named after.

[BawlmerOreos]

I find the DC mark to be more relevant to this club than the W. I think the W should be the one put to pasture, in regards to the current incaranation of this club.

Naah, i'm the opposite. I find the "W" to be the better logo since it has the history behind it.

Here's the rub, though - the Walgreens' W has almost no history behind it....

Almost No History > No History

That being said, the curly W has been injected with a history it didn't earn because it was used throughout the hiatus between the Senators' departure and the Nationals' arrival. Even though it was only used by the Senators for about 8 years (IIRC), it is treated as if it was in use for about 40 years. That false history helps fuel the perception that it is an iconic symbol of Washington baseball.

As for "Washington" vs. "DC", in my experience, someone living in Bethesda, Silver Spring, etc. may say they live in Washington to an out-of-towner. However, I've never known anyone living outside the District to say they are from "DC" or "the District." Therefore, I think it is fair to say that, at least in theory, the W represents a broader geographic area than the DC (even if they actually represent the same place).

I've lived in Bethesda my whole life, and I always say I'm from DC, without any hesitation.

Didn't you used to be some big Orioles fan?

I'm still a bit of an Orioles fan, but I find the Nationals to be far more organized and willing to win than the Orioles have been for the last 11 years. It's not so much the winning - it's the fact that I can enjoy watching a team without laughing about how pathetic they are.

Your team built a stadium with virtually no parking...that's pretty pathetic.

[TruColor]

Anyone else wonder why in the a team named the 'Blues' would have freaking trumpets on their jersey?! I mean, when I think trumpets, I think of marching bands, jazz ensembles, big band swing and ska.

Blues music is a GUITAR-based genre. Just ask Robert Johnson.

Erego, this conclusion would lead me to believe that whomever designed this has:

A.) No discernable aesthetic sense whatsoever, and

B.) No clue about the music his client's team was named after.

I already addressed this in another thread (to an extent), but you really need to have an understanding as to what the name "St. Louis Blues" means:

"St. Louis Blues"

This is a song that is associated with JAZZ, not the traditional blues you are referring to. In fact, Louis Armstrong (a trumpet player, of course) recorded a very famous version of this song.

[Sport]

There are bigger versions on google images, I believe.

That is HORID!!!!!!!!! Whoever made that should be shot!

The thing I find funny about the backlash against this jersey is that the uniforms they were wearing full time weren't that much better looking.

[TrueYankee26]

The NE logo that looks similar to BC's

Belichick wears a hat that has this logo

[BrySmalls]

I've never seen so many people bicker about the "W" and the "DC" present on the jerseys, helmets, and main logos. What really gets me every time I wear my Nats jersey is the "Established 1905" patch as it should read 2005 or 1969 (as they were the Expos then). Simply put, the Washington Nationals have really tried hard to fit in right off the bat with the fanbase in the D.C. Area that their main identity is being lost in translation and nostalgia.

The solution is to get a new jersey with the inaugural season in Nationals Park patch. Then you won't have to look at that pesky 1905 patch anymore. But you and I are in full agreement about the lameness of the 1905 claim. Even longtime Washington baseball fans didn't get that until it was explained; it looked like a typo.

Personally, I wish the Nats had gone all the way with the fake "established" assertion and used 1859, when the very first Nationals team was organized. Take that, Cincy!

Already got the patch from this site: http://store.teampatch.com/baseball.html

Might take the "1905" patch off of my jersey sooner or later and replace that with the recent interlocking DC logo.