The 1960's Browns logo that never was.

[AJM]

Their helmet is fine the way it is...however I did like the numbered throwback helmets they wore a few years back.

[Bmac]

Their helmet is fine the way it is...however I did like the numbered throwback helmets they wore a few years back.

I love those helmets. I wish they wore them more often.

[vmd9]

And, no one seems to mention this one, but this is the "Vintage" mark...there are eight (count 'em eight) versions of this one:

Nothing screams "Vintage" like Bank Gothic.

I think Bank Gothic was first created back in the 1930's so I mean technically it works for a vintage logo...

[Eye]

And, no one seems to mention this one, but this is the "Vintage" mark...there are eight (count 'em eight) versions of this one:

Nothing screams "Vintage" like Bank Gothic.

I think Bank Gothic was first created back in the 1930's so I mean technically it works for a vintage logo...

Whether or not when Bank Gothic was first created, the angles and sharp edges of the font convey a more futuristic than vintage feel.

[IceCap]

For me, (I know this is sacreligious) I would have a white mask and the <=B=> logo on both sides of the helmet...and bring back the orange pants as an alt! I think the B is better than the CB, the Elf, the Dog, or the blank.

I would adopt the <=B=> as the team's primary. Put it at mid-field, wear it on the jersey as a patch ala the Jets and Steelers, and let the networks use it to identify the team. I wouldn't put it on the helmet though. As much as I think the plain helmet looks odd, it is part of the team's history. So yeah, give the team a real logo, but keep it off the helmet.

[Buster]

Wow...sad that they would've had the worst-looking design, in the 60s!

Actually, the rest of the league looked great, especially the Skins.

[Cujo]

And, no one seems to mention this one, but this is the "Vintage" mark...there are eight (count 'em eight) versions of this one:

Nothing screams "Vintage" like Bank Gothic.

I think Bank Gothic was first created back in the 1930's so I mean technically it works for a vintage logo...

Whether or not when Bank Gothic was first created, the angles and sharp edges of the font convey a more futuristic than vintage feel.

This is one of the trashiest 'retro' logos I think I have ever seen. We all know they didnt use Bank Gothic back in 1946, and that they just slapped this together when they piled on the throwback bandwagon a few years ago.

Really, why do the Browns even try? Every-single-thing about their identity SUCKS.

[BigRed618]

When I was little, I didn't understand why the Browns would leave their helmets blank while every other team had a logo on their helmets. Now I learned to appreciate their identity a little more and believe they're fine the way they are. They are, for now, the only professional team in the country that wears brown. That's enough to distinguish them from the other NFL teams. The bulldog logo is kinda cool, too, but I'm probably the only one who thinks that.

[Gothamite]

We all know they didnt use Bank Gothic back in 1946

For anything? You know this? The font was around at the time.

[vmd9]

And, no one seems to mention this one, but this is the "Vintage" mark...there are eight (count 'em eight) versions of this one:

Nothing screams "Vintage" like Bank Gothic.

I think Bank Gothic was first created back in the 1930's so I mean technically it works for a vintage logo...

Whether or not when Bank Gothic was first created, the angles and sharp edges of the font convey a more futuristic than vintage feel.

This is one of the trashiest 'retro' logos I think I have ever seen. We all know they didnt use Bank Gothic back in 1946, and that they just slapped this together when they piled on the throwback bandwagon a few years ago.

Really, why do the Browns even try? Every-single-thing about their identity SUCKS.

so they made a font in the 1930s and didnt start using it until the 20th century? that really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Not sure what your hatred is for the Browns, but their idenity is fine. Browns fans seem to like it and thats all that matters really. Just out of curiosity why does it suck so bad? because Mangini is the coach? because they needed to get rid of Braylon Edwards and the Jets were the only team dumb enough to take him? because the Browns are 3-1 against the Jets since returning to the league? just wondering...please inform us

[IceCap]

Because brown and orange make for an ugly combo? That they wear a helmet that doesn't even have a logo? Or how about the fact that they wear grey facemasks despite not wearing the colour anywhere else? How about using a striping pattern that's quickly becoming obsolete?

Now before you go nuts on me for daring to question such a classic look, I'm not suggesting they change to any great degree (an official logo kept off the helmet and white facemaks are all I ask). What they have works for them. It may be ugly but it's theirs.

Still, being objective about it, it's not a pleasant identity.

[TruColor]

I've been thinking that they should change to the shade of Orange in the "vintage" logo and change the facemask color to Brown:

But then again, that's probably just me.

[IceCap]

That looks pretty nice, actually.

[RETROJR79]

I used to have one of those "CB" gumball machine helmets. I remember when I got it that I couldn't figure out why it had a CB decal. Our helmets are perfect as is. I'm still looking for the law that states a football helmet is required to have a logo.

I remember getting the Browns helmet out of the gumball machine and despite there being no logo on the helmet, it still had a plain orange sticker to go where the sticker would go. It's like they knew that kids would be pissed if they didn't get the sticker.

LOL I hear you I remember the Steelers had 2 stickers even though the logo is alway on 1 side and the Bengals logo looks small.

[andrewharrington]

Bank Gothic has a very vintage, 'Roaring 20s' feel to me, which is indicative of its era since it was designed in 1930. I suppose dating fonts is not your strongest point, Curty.

All aesthetic opinions aside, the Browns' identity is very strong from a marketing standpoint, having changed very little since its inception. Through all the trends that have come and gone, the browns have always remained 'the team with the orange helmet, the brown shirts and the striped sleeves.'

[habsfan1]

For me, (I know this is sacreligious) I would have a white mask and the <=B=> logo on both sides of the helmet...and bring back the orange pants as an alt! I think the B is better than the CB, the Elf, the Dog, or the blank.

I would adopt the <=B=> as the team's primary. Put it at mid-field, wear it on the jersey as a patch ala the Jets and Steelers, and let the networks use it to identify the team. I wouldn't put it on the helmet though. As much as I think the plain helmet looks odd, it is part of the team's history. So yeah, give the team a real logo, but keep it off the helmet.

Exactly. I don't know why the (=B=) logo was discontinued after such a short amount of time. The helmet logo must have alot of sentimental value to Browns fans. More than I thought. The B logo was simple and classy so it's a shame it wasn't used more, like for merchandise ans stuff. Even adopting it as the secondary logo was apparently out of question.

[chakfu]

For me, (I know this is sacreligious) I would have a white mask and the <=B=> logo on both sides of the helmet...and bring back the orange pants as an alt! I think the B is better than the CB, the Elf, the Dog, or the blank.

I would adopt the <=B=> as the team's primary. Put it at mid-field, wear it on the jersey as a patch ala the Jets and Steelers, and let the networks use it to identify the team. I wouldn't put it on the helmet though. As much as I think the plain helmet looks odd, it is part of the team's history. So yeah, give the team a real logo, but keep it off the helmet.

Exactly. I don't know why the (=B=) logo was discontinued after such a short amount of time. The helmet logo must have alot of sentimental value to Browns fans. More than I thought. The B logo was simple and classy so it's a shame it wasn't used more, like for merchandise ans stuff. Even adopting it as the secondary logo was apparently out of question.

The only problem with the (=B=) logo was that initials seem a little inappropriate when they're the nickname rather than the city. (=C=) might be better. The bulldog isn't bad to me either. As a Browns fan, keeping the helmet blank but using a separate logo would be a good solution IMO. After all, lots of teams have logos that aren't on their helmets, the Vikings guy, that Ram emblem, the Bengal tiger head, the old Eagle with the ball in the claws. I always thought these things made better primary logos for teams whose helmet logos portrayed something a little more...literal, like horns, wings, or tiger stripes - things that represent literal adornments of a viking helmet or ram or tiger, rather than just being a logo. All of those things work poorly as a primary logo, just like a blank helmet works poorly, and I thought the bulldog and (=B=) both worked well as replacements. Gotta love being able to represent a logo so nicely in ASCII as well.

[IceCap]

I don't like the bulldog because it represents a section of the team's fanbase rather then the team. I like the =B= logo because it works in the same abstract way that the name works. The Browns are named after a football coach. It's very vague as a team name. Which is why the =B= logo works. It's just has a sort of generic feel to it, which I think works well when you take the team name's vagueness into account.

Now you can make an argument that it should have a C rather then a B, but it's not really a deal breaker, in my opinion. C would be preferable, but B works just as well. The idea that only the location can be identified by a letter in a logo seems to be a belief restricted to us logo and uniform freaks. I doubt anyone not interested in this stuff, as in the vast majority of fans, cares about the location/name distinction in letter logos. Most wouldn't give a Browns logo that used a B a second thought.

[ESTONES6]

I love the gray facemask. As for the uniforms... i with they would bring back the orange pants on a regular basis. Although i like the brown pants, i think the orange ones put them to shame.

[andrewharrington]

Couple of points:

1. The <=B=> logo has not been discontinued, however, it's only for use on women's apparel.

2. Pro-bowl cornerback Hanford Dixon gave his defensive teammates the name 'dawgs' to inspire them before the 1985 season. The idea started during the 1985 Training Camp at Lakeland Community College in Kirtland, Ohio when Dixon and fellow pro-bowl cornerback Frank Minnifield began using the dog-versus-cat relationship between the quarterback and the defense as a motivator, with the quarterback being the cat, and the defense being the dog. Whenever the defense would record a sack the defensive players would bark at each other. This carried into the stands at training camp, where fans started barking along with the players. Dixon and Minnifield then put up the first "dawg pound" banner in front of the bleachers before the first preseason game at old Cleveland Stadium. Thus, the 'dawg' moniker will always be about the players first, which is why I don't mind it as a logo, though I never want to see it (or anything else except numbers) on the helmets.

3. I think putting a brown facemask on the helmet makes it look very 'high-schoolish' because you know any high school with a grey mask would have changed it to brown by now, and I believe there are a few local schools that have adopted that look.

Side note, about 'modern fonts.' Here's a boat load of them, including some Futura, on this 1966 game program. Awesome painting, too, and check out that weird-ass NFL logo.