2010 MLB New Logos, Uniforms, Patches

[Gothamite]

Can't agree with you there - while they're far less egregious than on the home, they still make the wordmark muddy and harder to read.

[IceCap]

The drop shadows on the gray road jersey look really good IMO.

I agree. I'll deviate from the general consensus here. My ideal Mets uniform would be the snow whites at home (with the black dropshadow and traditional blue hat), greys on the road (with drop shadow and traditional blue hat), and the black "New York" jersey as the alternate (just personal preference, I like the way the "New York" alternates compared to the "Mets" version). I would drop the pinstripes completley. Something like this.

[The_Admiral]

This is my piss-poor rendering of the best road script the Mets ever had. Any redesign they do would have to use this, because it matches the Mets' home script, and that makes perfect sense. The current road script makes no such sense. We know they took Dodger blue, Giant orange, and Yankee pinstripes...what compelled them to appropriate Red Sox lettering?

[Gothamite]

The Red Sox don't own all variations of that "classic baseball" font - the Giants wore one in the 1920s.

And besides, Boston wasn't wearing it on their roads at the time.

[zooropean]

Does anyone know if there will be a 2010 Twins road hat available without the 2010 Inaugural Season patch on it? I saw one on the New Era site and MLB.com before the new unis came out but have not seen one since.

[NDwas]

Update on the uniform template cap...any better/worse?

[M59]

i did speak with someone very high up in the mets marketing department today and, though i don't want to say what exactly was discussed, i do want to pose this question:

assuming the mets don't want to get rid of the alternate black jersey because of its selling success, would everyone be appeased if they just got rid of the black/blue hat and the dropshadows on the pinstripe and road grey? could black coexist in a world where traditional still exists? basically, would we all consider it a win if the dropshadows disappeared but the black jersey and all black hat remained?

Personally, I'd drop the all black cap before I got rid of the black/blue cap. I'd also get rid of all the drop shadows (because I just don't like 'em in general) and go with a three-color scheme on all the jerseys of blue/orange/white letters and numbers. (Except on the blue alternate jersey I would add to the set: it would feature orange/black/white letters and numbers.)

[schtee]

I'm actually not surprised - the new jersey doesn't really have an audience. The traditionalists who appreciate the throwback color will be put off by the black dropshadow, and the kids who like the black dropshadow will be put off by the dingy color.

Once again, in trying to be all things to all people, they've managed to be nothing special at all. What a Mets.

Great point Gothamite, the market for this jersey is people like us who are into logos, which makes it paramount that they get all the details correct. If not, we will pounce. People who are down for the black wouldn't care either way.

I'm against the black hat and blue bill because I believe in what Big Daddy Kane said, "aint no half-steppin."

[The_Admiral]

Guess you got me on the Giants picture up there, Gothamite, but I'm sticking to my guns: these days, that lettering style is really associated with the Red Sox and only the Red Sox. Best to either use the last version of the New York script the Giants used (blue and orange, of course) or go with one to match the Mets. Remember when they had block letters like the Yankees? That was weird.

[griffelh]

i did speak with someone very high up in the mets marketing department today and, though i don't want to say what exactly was discussed, i do want to pose this question:

assuming the mets don't want to get rid of the alternate black jersey because of its selling success, would everyone be appeased if they just got rid of the black/blue hat and the dropshadows on the pinstripe and road grey? could black coexist in a world where traditional still exists? basically, would we all consider it a win if the dropshadows disappeared but the black jersey and all black hat remained?

I would be happy if they had just gotten rid of the black drop shadow on the pinstripes. I don't mind them having a black alternate jersey or even the black caps. What I mind is that they seem to feel that they have to have some black in EVERYTHING. In doing that, they ruin the jerseys that don't need it. I'll just wear my Mitchell and Ness 1969 pinstripe jersey, no need to buy the monstrosity that they just issued. My concern is that when it doesn't sell, instead of recognizing that it is because of the black drop shadow, they will decide that mets fans don't care for the retro look; which of course is not the issue!

[JayJaxon]

Update on the uniform template cap...any better/worse?

That one is better. I know it would be a pain, but maybe you would consider using the same hat you have for the BP hats. That way, all of the hats look exactly the same.

[NDwas]

Update on the uniform template cap...any better/worse?

That one is better. I know it would be a pain, but maybe you would consider using the same hat you have for the BP hats. That way, all of the hats look exactly the same.

I could do that, but the only problem with doing so is that, graphically, the new 2010 BP caps follow the structure of the 5950 more than they do the 3930.

[cmm]

Interesting note on the new Mets jersey sales...

WEEI just quoted an article from today's New York Times concerning the Mets Official Clubhouse Store in Manhattan... On Black Friday, the new Mets jerseys were on sale at the clubhouse store. On the busiest shopping day of the year, in the middle of Manhattan, do you know how many new home jerseys the clubhouse sold?

Zero.

Way to go, Mets.

There are a few reasons why that Clubhouse Store sold zero. One is that Manhattan is Yankee country. But the big reason: they were selling them for $266.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/sports/baseball/28jerseys.html?_r=4

[BallWonk]

Update on the uniform template cap...any better/worse?

The subtler stitching is an improvement.

However, I just experimented holding 5950 caps to see what it would take to get the bill to look anything like the shape of the bill in your model. The good news: You can do it. The bad news: Getting the bill to look like that requires closing one eye and holding the cap almost flat 1-3/4 inches in front of your open eye. At that short focal distance, 20/20 eyesight does not allow for the stitches on the bill to be seen, and the cap logo will for most people be blurry. Also, the button on top of the cap cannot be seen when viewing the cap at the angle required to produce the shame of your bill.

So if you really want to have that highly distorted bill, for accuracy sake you need to remove the stitching and the cap button and apply a gaussian blur filter to the cap logo.

One of the distinguishing features of the 5950 design, and one of the main reasons I prefer 5950s despite New Era, is that the bill has a gentle curve all the way around. A 5950 bill does not come to near-corners on the sides with a flat front, as do most non-5950 ballcap bills. Thus the 5950's bill offers superior, or at least more consistent, shade from the sun, and also has a less informal profile. The real reason I'm giving you grief over your cap template is that the highly distorted shape of your bill gives it the appearance of having relatively sharp corners with a flat front. In other words, you've taken the single most defining element of a 5950's visual profile and distorted it beyond recognition. Which kind of bugs me, obviously, but more to the point I cannot conceive of any good design or aesthetic reason for doing so. It's simply wrong, in the same sense that it would be wrong for your template to display the Mets with bright red caps and a purple NY logo. With the shape of the bill, you're communicating information about the cap that is factually untrue.

But please, keep in mind that the length of this post reflects only my poor talents for saying things succinctly in a first draft. I really don't feel very strongly at all, and I mean no denigration of you or your work. I'm just struggling to try to express what I hope to be a useful critique in a persuasive manner. The important thins is that your overall new templates are much improved, and they were good to begin with!

[Gothamite]

He's right - the really forced perspective of the bill just doesn't work. It's too much.

I like the shape of the crown on your new version, though.

[Gothamite]

Guess you got me on the Giants picture up there, Gothamite, but I'm sticking to my guns: these days, that lettering style is really associated with the Red Sox and only the Red Sox. Best to either use the last version of the New York script the Giants used (blue and orange, of course) or go with one to match the Mets. Remember when they had block letters like the Yankees? That was weird.

These days? I'd say that the Mets have a pretty good claim on the lettering style, going back a half-century and all. You can't really fault them for going back to their original style or the 1969 look.

If the question is why did they ape the Red Sox in 1952, I don't think that holds up either. There wouldn't have been much cause to associate it with the Red Sox specifically - the font was pretty common in baseball in the 20th century, used by many teams, and at the time the Mets designed their uniforms there were two other teams using it besides the Red Sox.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I'd like to repeat something I mentioned on this question about a year ago. If the Mets absolutely have to have a coloured alternate jersey (which of course they don't), then it should be blue, and it should be used only on the road. I found this great pic of what must have been a button-down batting-practice jersey from 1998, the last year before the black:

Regarding the black, I am in the camp that wants no black whatsoever in the uniform, including the cap. Mets = blue. Bloody simple. It is frustrating that the team has so weakened this part of its identity. It wasn't so long ago that the Mets actually looked like Mets, as their unis (re)attained perfection from 1995 through 1998.

[NDwas]

The subtler stitching is an improvement.

However, I just experimented holding 5950 caps to see what it would take to get the bill to look anything like the shape of the bill in your model. The good news: You can do it. The bad news: Getting the bill to look like that requires closing one eye and holding the cap almost flat 1-3/4 inches in front of your open eye. At that short focal distance, 20/20 eyesight does not allow for the stitches on the bill to be seen, and the cap logo will for most people be blurry. Also, the button on top of the cap cannot be seen when viewing the cap at the angle required to produce the shame of your bill.

So if you really want to have that highly distorted bill, for accuracy sake you need to remove the stitching and the cap button and apply a gaussian blur filter to the cap logo.

One of the distinguishing features of the 5950 design, and one of the main reasons I prefer 5950s despite New Era, is that the bill has a gentle curve all the way around. A 5950 bill does not come to near-corners on the sides with a flat front, as do most non-5950 ballcap bills. Thus the 5950's bill offers superior, or at least more consistent, shade from the sun, and also has a less informal profile. The real reason I'm giving you grief over your cap template is that the highly distorted shape of your bill gives it the appearance of having relatively sharp corners with a flat front. In other words, you've taken the single most defining element of a 5950's visual profile and distorted it beyond recognition. Which kind of bugs me, obviously, but more to the point I cannot conceive of any good design or aesthetic reason for doing so. It's simply wrong, in the same sense that it would be wrong for your template to display the Mets with bright red caps and a purple NY logo. With the shape of the bill, you're communicating information about the cap that is factually untrue.

But please, keep in mind that the length of this post reflects only my poor talents for saying things succinctly in a first draft. I really don't feel very strongly at all, and I mean no denigration of you or your work. I'm just struggling to try to express what I hope to be a useful critique in a persuasive manner. The important thins is that your overall new templates are much improved, and they were good to begin with!

What you might be surprised to hear (or not) is that the hat template I'm using now originated from the 5950 template that New Era distributed some time this year. Would any of these appease anyone's tastes? Or should I just try something new?

Exhibit A:

[vekterx]

Recently, my father did some cleaning and unearthed a picture of the 1999 Mets celebrating their win over the Pirates to clinch a Wild Card Tie-Breaker.

In that picture, the Mets uniforms looked very sharp, and this was with the Snow White + Drop Shadow BUT No NOB. Honestly, I'm not much of a fan of the Snow Whites - but in this picture I love the look.

I still would love to see the no drop shadow on the pinstriped alternates and maybe no NOB. I'd buy one. I actually bought the "throwback" 1900s jersey the Mets wore this year.

I love the idea of what the above poster said about dropping black for blue alternate. They could be done with orange letters with white trim or white letters with orange trim. It is a nod to the teams of the 80s, as the pinstripes are a nod to the 60s.

If anyone hasn't seen it, check out the history of Mets uniforms.

Mets MLB Game Worn Guides

[The_Admiral]

Whoa, I'd never seen that tailed New York script before. I like it a lot. Someone should add those to the site. I would if I were competent with Illustrator.