Lee. Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 My main issue with the whole thing is that the badge itself looks upside down. I know they had to hammer the arch in there somewhere, since including the arch in a St Louis logo seems to be an unwritten rule along the lines of putting a maple leaf in every new logo for a Canadian team, but it doesn't look particularly good.The whole thing looks unfinished. This is a problem. Welcome to DrunjFlix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 My main issue with the whole thing is that the badge itself looks upside down. I know they had to hammer the arch in there somewhere, since including the arch in a St Louis logo seems to be an unwritten rule along the lines of putting a maple leaf in every new logo for a Canadian team, but it doesn't look particularly good.The whole thing looks unfinished. This is a problem.It does SEEM this way, however...The Cardinals have never had an arch in their logos (that I'm aware of). The ASG logo of course did, but I think that makes sense.The Blues for the first time last year put an arch in one of their logos, and it appears only on the alternate sweater. (They too had an ASG logo with the Arch way back in, I think, 1987.)The Rams had an arch in their wordmark from 1995 to 2000 when the only other logo they had was a helmet graphic. Since the identity update in 2000, they've had no arches in their logos.And yet, I know exactly what you mean... but I'm wondering if it comes more from the fact that anybody who makes a St. Louis CONCEPT feels the need to place the arch in there as opposed to that idea actually being in practice. (And of course, you could probably find a number of Canadian teams who don't use the leaf, too, but I'm not going to do that.)I don't mind the badge shape, either. But I do agree with people that the logo lacks a little bit of athletic flare. I see a four-star hotel logo. But I still kinda like it. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Good thing it's AC St. Louis and not St. Louis AC - otherwise, no doubt rival club supporters would have quickly dubbed them the "SLACkers". As I've pointed out before, St. Louis United (the "SLUTs") would have been a dubious name choice for the same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.