Wow, the Lerners Really Hate the Nats' DC Logo

[Gothamite]

The whole thing would work better with the gold-beveled block W that Todd Radom designed in 2005

This one?

That's it.

Done, and done.

[leopard88]

The whole thing would work better with the gold-beveled block W that Todd Radom designed in 2005

This one?

That's it.

Done, and done.

Agreed. That is one sweet looking cap.

[Artmanc3po]

Tough but interesting arguments all. Growing up in the 70s and 80s and collecting baseball cards, I would really like to get a hold of a Senators, Pilots or .45s card from the 60s/early 70s. I thought they were the coolest in my collection, even though they weren't necessarily the best players, because they were unique in that they were from a team or nickname that was no more. When The Nationals were introduced and I saw the curly W being used, it felt really cool to see it back in action. Was the curly W the definitive Senators W? No way. Is it a pretty good link to Senators fans that mourned their moving away for good? Probably better than the block W, just because it was the last one used in DC.

Does the curly W fit with the current uni set? Nope. Usually that would really get on my nerves, like with the new Rays hat that doesn't have any gold in it at all to match the burst or the recolored ray. With the Nationals I don't mind as much because the uniforms are certainly modern and do represent the capital (I agree with the above argument), but the curly W is completely, 100% speaking to the past. Things would look better if the entire look agreed, but I'm fine with what they have because these facts. The Nationals exist as a team for the future but with a foot in the past because they're apparently so glad to be back in the game.

[BallWonk]

I always knew it to be the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia.

Damn the educational system. Liars.

The federal government seems to support the version foisted upon you by our educational system.

That map is from a search of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names database. They seem to believe there is a place named Washington, even if it is not a legal entity.

For the record, I live in an unincorporated town. In theory, it exists solely as the name of a postal zone (which is also the case with every other town in my county, since they are also unincorporated). I don't think anyone is going to stop using the name since there is no muncipal corporation bearing the name of the town.

Just to clarify, there is no city of Washington in the District of Columbia anymore. Hasn't been in upwards of a century. That doesn't mean that the name "Washington" is wrong or anything. There's no such thing as the Twin Cities either, but everyone knows what you mean when you say it. I live in Fairfax County, but just across the creek from the city of Alexandria, so as far as the Post Office is concerned I live in Alexandria.

So the federal government says that it has its capital in Washington, and the Post Office works on the theory that people who live within the federal district live in the city of Washington. But there is no legal entity called Washington; the local government is the District of Columbia. The legislature is the District Council, not the city council, and the chief executive is the mayor of the District of Columbia, not of Washington, and the public libraries are the District of Columbia Public Library, and the fire department is the DCFD, and so on. It's a technical point, but a real one, that nonetheless does not negate the validity of the common use of "Washington" as the place name.

Anyway, this is why the default usage locally is to describe the District itself as "DC" or "the District" but the larger metropolitan region as "Washington." So as a Northern Virginia resident, I can say I live in Washington. If I said I lived in DC, I would be understood locally as saying that I did not live in Maryland or Virginia but in the federal district itself.

[Gothamite]

Didn't someone here say just the opposite - that Marylanders and Virginians would identify with the "DC" but not necessarily the "W"?

[CubsFanBudMan]

To my estimation, and draw your own conclusions and have your own caveats, but the following teams have wordmarks and hats that don't have similar flow.

LA Dodgers. Great look, of course one's not beveled so its a lot more subtle but Block LA vs. classic Dodger script. Its a tough argument to say those, on an objective level technically flow. Most would agree it works beautifully- but using the logic many are with the Nationals, they are different. (Note, Mr. Baseball's Dragon team in Japan flowed...but i'll take the block LA)

Arizona Diamondbacks- The A is obviously for the old set, and the Snake D was redesigned, but still stands on its own to me. Its just that its so new, its easy to lump them together. But if you want to get technical on a nerd level I'm not sure they technically flow like most others.

Minnesota Twins-The Twins are Ironic because their homes did match the M hat, but they wear the M with Away that features the standard Block lettering and the TC hat with the newer word mark. Again I think it fits in a certain way, but underlines the fact that these hats seem to be for nostalgia sake more than design sense. But I doubt anyone would argue such an obvious point.

Ultimately I think the logo on a baseball hat is to be treated as its own mark, despite only three of them being actual marks (Houston, Cleveland, Baltimore) So if it stands by itself a bit it gets a pass in my eyes, and I think the loop W is DC baseball. Thats the instant coorelation I get.

Bottom line, it also unites the old guard Senators fans with the new Nationals franchise. I think it makes for an acceptable bridge.

I wanted to quote this because I think sometimes good points get lost when they are made at the bottom of a page.

I'll add the new Reds, classic Cardinals and road Cubs to the non-matching club. It happens a lot. Radom's taken a couple hits in this thread, so I'd like to say for the record that I like the Nationals look and I believe I always have (but didn't check the archive), despite -- or perhaps because of -- the quirks.

Someone mentioned over-designed, but I don't think this one qualifies. It seems all modern unis have to have every last piece match just because we have the technology to do it. (NBA was the worst offender, but the overuse of specialized fonts in the NFL and MLB qualify as well.)

It's rare that something comes along that was so underdesigned. Vintage cap logo, old Cowboys number font and a new beveled wordmark. I like all of the elements separately and I think it works as a uniform.

The cap logo says Washington to me, but you can blame New Era and the Cooperstown Collection for that. As a kid I remember the first time I saw a poster with throwback caps on it -- St. Louis Browns, gold Pirates, and the red pretzel W. I wanted them all. That was the '80s, so even though that cap represented Washington baseball for only a short time on the field, it became the image associated with it for so much longer. To me, it's no wonder that fans there latched onto it. Like someone said above, I thought that had to be the cap when MLB returned and was happy to see it incorporated.

[Gothamite]

Like someone said above, I thought that had to be the cap when MLB returned and was happy to see it incorporated.

Well, at the risk of rehashing 5 pages, it's a shame that it wasn't incorporated.

It isn't my favorite cap from Washington's storied baseball history, but I would have gladly accepted it had they come up with a scheme that did something with it.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Like someone said above, I thought that had to be the cap when MLB returned and was happy to see it incorporated.

Well, at the risk of rehashing 5 pages, it's a shame that it wasn't incorporated.

It isn't my favorite cap from Washington's storied baseball history, but I would have gladly accepted it had they come up with a scheme that did something with it.

Ha, good point, bad choice of words on my part, especially after sifting through those five pages over the past week or so before making my observation. I see where you and others are coming from, but for whatever reason, those issues don't bother me as much, even when presented with the beveled W cap above.

[daschuck77]

I don't think it's a popular look at all...I live in Southern VA and all I see stuck on the shelves in stores like TJ Maxx and Marshalls are those DC batting jerseys...a ton of them. I think you're right and it will be phased out and they will have to eat all that overstock they have or give the crap away.

If there's a XXL, I"ll gladly pay for shipping to Vancouver

I'll make a note of it to check and PM's you if I find anything.

[Gothamite]

If they are going to keep the pretzel, then I think this would be an upgrade:

That one little detail, breaking up the solid curve, enhances the design to my eye. Separates the ballclub from the drugstore (which is especially unfortunate these days).

[DEAD!]

That one little detail, breaking up the solid curve, enhances the design to my eye. Separates the ballclub from the drugstore (which is especially unfortunate these days).

That detail does makes it look "continuous." Oddly enough, that detail on that garbage can was done out of necessity.

[dahatman]

The whole thing would work better with the gold-beveled block W that Todd Radom designed in 2005

This one?

That's it.

Done, and done.

Agreed. That is one sweet looking cap.

Now that should be their Alternate or Road uni cap. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

[BallWonk]

If they are going to keep the pretzel, then I think this would be an upgrade:

That one little detail, breaking up the solid curve, enhances the design to my eye. Separates the ballclub from the drugstore (which is especially unfortunate these days).

Agreed. Though I would make the breaks proportionally smaller, and also make the line of the whole letter thicker by up to a third. The thicker the line of the curly W is, the better it looks. For some uses -- mostly print promotions -- the Nats use a very thick curly W, and it looks pretty good. Added "heft" to the letter helps even out the lopsidedness of the loops, which become the dominant feature when the line of the letter is as thin as it is on the ballcap. The added thickness would also help the cap logo balance better against the jersey script, I think.

As to the prototype gold-beveled block W, that would be my favorite ballcap in pro ball if it existed today. Sigh. Greatest verified discarded concept in pro sports history, or just MLB?

[Gothamite]

Was it really discarded?

Where did the cap come from?

[BallWonk]

Was it really discarded?

Where did the cap come from?

It is just a theory that this was a discarded Nats prototype. But the evidence is strong enough to make it a theory, not a hypothesis, until we have confirmation from Todd Radom or someone else with firsthand knowledge.

1. That is clearly a New Era 5950. The evident construction details are persuasive, and the highly rounded corner of the bill is dispositive.

2. It is difficult nearly to the point of impossibility to have custom cap embroidery done in small batches using metallic gold thread. It can be done, but only at disproportionately great expense and investment of time and effort.

3. It is effectively impossible for an individual to have custom embroidery done with the foam-core puffy style of authentic MLB caps. This cap has embroidery as thick as a foam-core authentic cap.

The above characteristics are consistent with a prototype created in-house by New Era, or with an actual production authentic cap made by New Era. They are not consistent with any other origin for the cap. (That I know of, which should be assumed as a caveat to every such statement made here.)

Given that the cap was photographed at RFK, being worn by a person with field access, in the early part of the 2005 season, and given how exactly the cap matches the decorative style of the DC logo adopted by the team, we can be reasonably sure that the origin of the W logo itself is with the Nats organization or MLB.

Finally, we know that this logo was not adopted by the Nats for any official or public purpose. It is not, and has never been, part of the team's identity package.

So we can be reasonably sure that this cap was created for internal review by the Nats/MLB at the time of the team's name change and rebranding. We also know that this logo was not adopted by the team. If those suppositions are correct, then so must be the conclusion that this is a discarded concept logo.

[powersurge]

The whole thing would work better with the gold-beveled block W that Todd Radom designed in 2005

This one?

That's it.

Done, and done.

Agreed. That is one sweet looking cap.

Now that should be their Alternate or Road uni cap. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

I'm confused here. Why does everyone really hate the 'curly W'?

Is the argument against the 'curly W' based simply on the fact that it doesn't match the uniforms? or on the whole ' it looks like the Walgreen's 'W' thing?

Because if its the former than I don't think that it makes sense. The current Nats unis are a perfect example of early millenium crappy design that will inevitably be changed within the next 5 years or so. I'd keep the iconic looking 'curly W' over a 'crappy soon to be changed design trendy look' anyday. They can make the next uniforms match the 'W' and solve the whole problem...therefore it wouldn't warrant ditching the 'curly W' that has been associated with Washington baseball on and off for decades.

If the argument is the latter....well then we just have to get over it I guess. It doesn't bother me much. Not to mention the fact that there is a perfect solution to this problem on a garbage can in a pic someone displayed a few posts back. The logo might look very similar to the Walgreen's logo, but the history behind the Nats' 'curly W' kind of pardons that fact IMO.

I will also add, that while I think that it is very appropriate for the team to utilize a 'DC' secondary logo, I don't like the one they currently have. To say that they should in some way replace the current primary 'curly W' with the block letter 'DC' logo because it matches the uniforms, or 'looks better', or whatever...is something that I just don't agree with.

[BallWonk]

I'm confused here. Why does everyone really hate the 'curly W'?

Truth is, I basically agree with you. But I do think the arguments against the curly W are stronger than you allow for.

Is the argument against the 'curly W' based simply on the fact that it doesn't match the uniforms? or on the whole ' it looks like the Walgreen's 'W' thing?

Both. And more. There's the fact that it was only used briefly, by the worst Senators team right before it skipped town, and therefore only stand for the "history" of baseball in Washington to people who don't actually remember baseball being played in Washington. (People I have a lot of sympathy for; I'd have clung to the curly W like a talisman if they took away my team when I was 13 too. It's like the Confederate flag. I understand the attachment. But understanding it doesn't make it right.) There's also the fact that while the Radom-updated curly W is a significant improvement over the curly W left behind in 1971, but it's still a badly rendered logo. The lines of the loop don't match where the two loops cross. That alone would make it possibly the worst-drawn logo, from a purely technical point, in the major leagues. Plus there's an unsightly bulge under the W's left armpit. And the team can never seem to figure out what the proper angle of display is.

So, the curly W is a bad idea based on false premises of local history. But even if it were a good idea, it's a poorly drawn logo. But even if it were a well-drawn logo, it would too closely resemble the trademark of a nationally known retail store. But even if it did not resemble someone else's logo, it clashes with the aesthetics of the rest of the uniform.

Because if its the former than I don't think that it makes sense. The current Nats unis are a perfect example of early millenium crappy design that will inevitably be changed within the next 5 years or so. I'd keep the iconic looking 'curly W' over a 'crappy soon to be changed design trendy look' anyday. They can make the next uniforms match the 'W' and solve the whole problem...therefore it wouldn't warrant ditching the 'curly W' that has been associated with Washington baseball on and off for decades.

On and off for decades in which baseball was not being played in Washington. But you're both right and (probably) wrong. The curly W isn't going anywhere. It's here to stay. So, too, is the gold beveled jersey lettering.

If the argument is the latter....well then we just have to get over it I guess. It doesn't bother me much. Not to mention the fact that there is a perfect solution to this problem on a garbage can in a pic someone displayed a few posts back. The logo might look very similar to the Walgreen's logo, but the history behind the Nats' 'curly W' kind of pardons that fact IMO.

Again, there is no "real" history behind the curly W that would excuse anything. The curly W stands for the nostalgia of a generation who missed baseball in Washington, not for Washington baseball itself.

I will also add, that while I think that it is very appropriate for the team to utilize a 'DC' secondary logo, I don't like the one they currently have. To say that they should in some way replace the current primary 'curly W' with the block letter 'DC' logo because it matches the uniforms, or 'looks better', or whatever...is something that I just don't agree with.

The most likely story, and this comes in part from conversations with people in a position to offer informed "no comments," is that the DC logo was designed as part of a uniform package in which there was a matching W, and that the commissioner's office accepted the rest of the package but replaced the new W with the curly W, because Bud Selig is kind of an idiot when it comes to nostalgia. Also, it was easier to have red curly W caps ready for major public events in the winter of 2004-2005 than to have new gold-beveled block W caps ready. There already was a good supply of 1971-style Senators caps in circulation in those months, so public events could be (and were) outfitted with those caps.

Personally, I wish the Nats would wear a blue DC cap on the road, just to make the uniform read "Washington DC" -- but that's not gonna happen anytime soon. The team's ownership and management has been quite clear in their disdain for the idea of any DC logo. Look for the DC to become less and less a part of the team's identity, on the field and off, in the coming three years.

[powersurge]

As usual B-wonk, very well written response.

I guess I'm just biased against using anything OTHER than the 'curly W' for Washington baseball.

But as you said, my adoration for it may stem from an overblown and misguided sense of nostalgia that makes no real sense when you try to rationalize it.

They should just use the damn block 'W' and move on.

[Gothamite]

The team's ownership and management has been quite clear in their disdain for the idea of any DC logo.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see that.

Promoting the hell out of the cap logo does not mean that they hate the alternate logo.

[maz]

The curly W is the better logo and should be kept. In fact, their look should be built more around it.