Sabrejeff Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I did a quick scan and a search and didn't see it anywhere. Sorry if it's been posted before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik121 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 What an interesting and different font!!!1!!1! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejeff Posted April 16, 2008 Author Share Posted April 16, 2008 I like the gratuitous sponsor logo. And why Baby Ruth? They couldn't get Cracker Jack? Good thing Baby Ruth at least has peanuts in it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meetthemets Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 What an interesting and different font!!!1!!1!Yeah, that doesn't look like it came from Phoenix at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik121 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I like the gratuitous sponsor logo. And why Baby Ruth? They couldn't get Cracker Jack? Good thing Baby Ruth at least has peanuts in it!I never thought of that till I read this, but that is such a great idea. How stupid not to have Cracker Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Maybe Cracker Jack wouldn't pay. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi74 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I like the gratuitous sponsor logo. And why Baby Ruth? They couldn't get Cracker Jack? Good thing Baby Ruth at least has peanuts in it!I never thought of that till I read this, but that is such a great idea. How stupid not to have Cracker Jack.Or Planters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I'm not a huge fan of the Standard Major League Event font, but it's better than most of the World Series fonts of the past decade. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkshadow1031 Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Did they just slap this together in an afternoon? 2002-2006 ALUMNI 2007-2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallWonk Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I'm not a huge fan of the Standard Major League Event font, but it's better than most of the World Series fonts of the past decade.Disagree! Disagree! They've had some excellent WS logos lately.Oh, wait, you mean just the fonts? Then never mind. Good WS logos. Crap WS fonts.But I don't get the lettering on this logo. When I look at it, the first thing that hits me is the question, "Why don't the T and the M look like the O and the B?" It's really, really distracting typography. And the simple rule of thumb is that anytime you notice the typography as typography, it's bad typography. I actually like the swooshy/blocky Opening Day style of MLB lettering. It looks baseball uniform-y without too closely echoing any team's actual uniform lettering. But you've either got to use the swooshy letter for all initial caps (except articles and prepositions) or you've got to use it for the one most important word ("ballgame"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meetthemets Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I'm not a huge fan of the Standard Major League Event font, but it's better than most of the World Series fonts of the past decade.Disagree! Disagree! They've had some excellent WS logos lately.Oh, wait, you mean just the fonts? Then never mind. Good WS logos. Crap WS fonts.Haven't the last few WS logos been just type? How could you like the logo and not the fonts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallWonk Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I'm not a huge fan of the Standard Major League Event font, but it's better than most of the World Series fonts of the past decade.Disagree! Disagree! They've had some excellent WS logos lately.Oh, wait, you mean just the fonts? Then never mind. Good WS logos. Crap WS fonts.Haven't the last few WS logos been just type? How could you like the logo and not the fonts?You're mostly right. The pre-2007 WS logos have been so bad that I've more or less mentally blocked them out in favor of the 2007 WS logo:Which combines terrible type with great graphics as I describe. I had somehow persuaded myself that this was a logo used for several years, not a one-off. Shame, because with better type this would be among the best WS logos of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.