abc006 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I don't know why people are complaining, this is a fantastic logo. The logo is great, so so so much better than the old one, the fact that it's like that old "The City" logo is fantastic. Sure, perhaps the colors could have been executed better, and the font definitely could have - I don't know why they don't bring back that great old Western font - but overall A) it's much better than the old one, and the fact that they brought back a great old logo, perhaps with a slightly unnecessary modern twist, is great, and I'm not sad. Plus, there's nothing wrong with having the logo right in the middle of the jersey. I'm excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 If you're having to qualify that things could have been done better, it's not a fantastic logo. Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horrorshow Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I guess my beef with this identity is what's the point of being called the Warriors if your logo is a bridge? They might as well be the arches or something, idk. This just doesn't scream WARRIORS to me.I think there are more than a few who would argue the same thing about the "flaming tack" and "pinwheel" in your signature. That being said, I definitely see your point, but the Warriors aren't the only team who are guilty of having a vague association between their nickname and their logo. I like to spout nonsense on camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhans203 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I am surprised this wasn't posted. This was on UniWatch today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Golden One Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I am surprised this wasn't posted. This was on UniWatch today.Uhh it is posted here as I put it up, right after Anthony Morrow Leaked it on his twitter. Which is also the same time I sent it to Paul at UniWatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhans203 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I am surprised this wasn't posted. This was on UniWatch today.Uhh it is posted here as I put it up, right after Anthony Morrow Leaked it on his twitter. Which is also the same time I sent it to Paul at UniWatch.Didn't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Golden One Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 No problem, It was page 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Is the text part of the same "patch" as the logo? THat would really look cheap, especially if the jersey is mesh, or if the background of the text shines differently in the light. I'm hoping (but doubtful) that the letters are individually stitched... but I'm not sure if manufacturers do that any more. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eRay Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I doubt with all the concentration on lowering weight, making things more "athletic", and being more sleek that this jersey will feature a huge twill patch with embroidery all over it, and embroidered letters outside that patch. I'm thinking adidas is pushing them towards sublimation, like the leaked All-Star jerseys seem to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loogodude90 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 This is kind of an interesting take, and I am not from the Bay Area or anything. But, I sort of noticed that Golden State's olden colors (gold and orange) paid homage to both the Oakland A's (yellow) and SF Giants (orange). Now, it seems like they are only using gold to represent the A's, but then again have an SF logo now. IS anyone else as confused about this organization's direction as I am??? WIZARDS ORIOLES CAPITALS RAVENS UNITED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knnhrvy16 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 This is kind of an interesting take, and I am not from the Bay Area or anything. But, I sort of noticed that Golden State's olden colors (gold and orange) paid homage to both the Oakland A's (yellow) and SF Giants (orange). Now, it seems like they are only using gold to represent the A's, but then again have an SF logo now. IS anyone else as confused about this organization's direction as I am??? I'm not sure that the gold and orange paid homage to the A's and Giants. The gold has always been a team color as long as they've been in the bay area, and considering that the certain orange they used was called "Golden Gate Bridge Orange", I think the orange was paying homage to the bridge. Personally, and this is just me, I think they made an "SF" logo just to let San Francisco fans know that it's thier team too, and that they aknowledge San Francisco, and not just Oakland. Technically I don't think it's necessary, as they are the Golden State Warriors, not Oakland. Golden State obviously refers to the whole state of California so I think their name is broad enough, and not alienating. That's just my thoughts on the matter. The opinions I express are mine, and mine only. If I am to express them, it is not to say you or anyone else is wrong, and certainly not to say that I am right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 The "SF" is there to mean the San Francisco Bay Area, not just the city proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goforbroke Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 This is kind of an interesting take, and I am not from the Bay Area or anything. But, I sort of noticed that Golden State's olden colors (gold and orange) paid homage to both the Oakland A's (yellow) and SF Giants (orange). Now, it seems like they are only using gold to represent the A's, but then again have an SF logo now. IS anyone else as confused about this organization's direction as I am??? The Warriors moved to San Fransisco 6 years before the A's moved to Oakland, so the Warriors color scheme can't be motivated by the A's.I think the Orange was more of a representation of the Golden Gate bridge than an homage to the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 This is kind of an interesting take, and I am not from the Bay Area or anything. But, I sort of noticed that Golden State's olden colors (gold and orange) paid homage to both the Oakland A's (yellow) and SF Giants (orange). Now, it seems like they are only using gold to represent the A's, but then again have an SF logo now. IS anyone else as confused about this organization's direction as I am??? The Warriors moved to San Fransisco 6 years before the A's moved to Oakland, so the Warriors color scheme can't be motivated by the A's.I think the Orange was more of a representation of the Golden Gate bridge than an homage to the Giants.True, but it bugs the hell out of me that they keep trying to reference the city of San Francisco when its pretty obvious that they play in Oakland (well at least its obvious to everyone in that area) I've never been there but from what I've heard those two cities couldn't be anymore different from one another. Do people from San Francisco really view the Warriors as THEIR team? I'm just asking because I'm really curious. If they really wanted to gain the SF fan support then why not just build an arena in that city and do away with the ridiculous Golden State garbage. It has always seemed like a cop out to me. Either you're an Oakland team or a San Francisco team. Stop trying to be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 From the official press release:The other secondary logo simply incorporates the basketball featured in the partial logo with a large ?SF? centered vertically inside the ball, in recognition of the fact that the Warriors played in San Francisco for the first nine years (1962 ? 1971) of their existence in Northern California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 This is kind of an interesting take, and I am not from the Bay Area or anything. But, I sort of noticed that Golden State's olden colors (gold and orange) paid homage to both the Oakland A's (yellow) and SF Giants (orange). Now, it seems like they are only using gold to represent the A's, but then again have an SF logo now. IS anyone else as confused about this organization's direction as I am??? The Warriors moved to San Fransisco 6 years before the A's moved to Oakland, so the Warriors color scheme can't be motivated by the A's.I think the Orange was more of a representation of the Golden Gate bridge than an homage to the Giants.True, but it bugs the hell out of me that they keep trying to reference the city of San Francisco when its pretty obvious that they play in Oakland (well at least its obvious to everyone in that area) I've never been there but from what I've heard those two cities couldn't be anymore different from one another. Do people from San Francisco really view the Warriors as THEIR team? I'm just asking because I'm really curious. If they really wanted to gain the SF fan support then why not just build an arena in that city and do away with the ridiculous Golden State garbage. It has always seemed like a cop out to me. Either you're an Oakland team or a San Francisco team. Stop trying to be both.The whole area, however, is the San Francisco Bay Area. If the Raiders and A's didn't use the Oakland moniker would Oakland even be considered as a viable location name? Or would it be placed in the same camp as Auburn Hills and Orchard Park? PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 This is kind of an interesting take, and I am not from the Bay Area or anything. But, I sort of noticed that Golden State's olden colors (gold and orange) paid homage to both the Oakland A's (yellow) and SF Giants (orange). Now, it seems like they are only using gold to represent the A's, but then again have an SF logo now. IS anyone else as confused about this organization's direction as I am??? The Warriors moved to San Fransisco 6 years before the A's moved to Oakland, so the Warriors color scheme can't be motivated by the A's.I think the Orange was more of a representation of the Golden Gate bridge than an homage to the Giants.True, but it bugs the hell out of me that they keep trying to reference the city of San Francisco when its pretty obvious that they play in Oakland (well at least its obvious to everyone in that area) I've never been there but from what I've heard those two cities couldn't be anymore different from one another. Do people from San Francisco really view the Warriors as THEIR team? I'm just asking because I'm really curious. If they really wanted to gain the SF fan support then why not just build an arena in that city and do away with the ridiculous Golden State garbage. It has always seemed like a cop out to me. Either you're an Oakland team or a San Francisco team. Stop trying to be both.The whole area, however, is the San Francisco Bay Area. If the Raiders and A's didn't use the Oakland moniker would Oakland even be considered as a viable location name? Or would it be placed in the same camp as Auburn Hills and Orchard Park?Oakland would absolutely be considered a viable location name. Why wouldn't it? There's probably about a little less than half a million people in the town itself. Compare that to about 800-900K in San Fran. There's no way you can compare Oakland to Auburn Hills or Orchard Park. I don't think either of those towns top 30K. Oakland and San Fran seem like two completely different cities. I'm pretty sure that if they built a stadium in SF that they couldn't care less about Oakland fans. They'd call themselves the San Francisco Warriors and turn their backs on Oak town. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it just seems that way and it just irks me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 The "official" name for the region is the SF Bay Area. The economic and cultural center of influence is SF. Oakland has a sizeable population, but (and I'm uneducated here as I'm not from there) IMO Oakland woudn't be known if the Raiders and A's didn't use it.. It's one metro area, and it ain't the Oakland metro area. I know someone with more knowledge will correct me if I'm mistaken, but that's what I've gathered from the (albeit) quick research I've done. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmatias Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 I was born and raised in San Francisco and I remember the team as the San Francisco Warriors. The Warriors are considered the San Francisco Bay Area's team (San Francisco, Oakland & San Jose). I always hated the geographic indicator of Golden State since it sounded like a college team and it appeared as they represented the entire state. I would not see a problem of going back to their original name, after all, the Los Angeles Angels play in Anaheim and the Tampa Bay Rays play in St. Pete.San Francisco is "The City" of the Bay Area, Oakland and San Jose are second and third fiddle. You could check out anytime you like, but you could never leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 The "official" name for the region is the SF Bay Area. The economic and cultural center of influence is SF. Oakland has a sizeable population, but (and I'm uneducated here as I'm not from there) IMO Oakland woudn't be known if the Raiders and A's didn't use it. It's one metro area, and it ain't the Oakland metro area. I know someone with more knowledge will correct me if I'm mistaken, but that's what I've gathered from the (albeit) quick research I've done.The logo switched bridges. It went from the icon of SF (Golden gate) to an image which will connect SF to Alameda County (new span of the Bay Bridge). Oakland and Alameda County has some corporate identity, namely Clorox Corporation and the Port of Oakland is one of the four busiest in the US. It is one region. While the cultural center is easily San Francisco, the economic engine has moved south to San Mateo County and Santa Clara County in terms of major companies and employers. For every Fortune 1000 company HQ'd within "The City" (Wells Fargo, McKesson, Gap, PG&E), there are two which are located outside the city/county limits like :Chevron- San Ramon (Contra Costa County)HP- Palo Alto (San Mateo County)Safeway- Pleansanton (Alameda County)Intel- Santa Clara (Santa Clara County)Oracle- Redwood City (San Mateo County)Fortune 500 in CAI was born and raised in San Francisco and I remember the team as the San Francisco Warriors. The Warriors are considered the San Francisco Bay Area's team (San Francisco, Oakland & San Jose). I always hated the geographic indicator of Golden State since it sounded like a college team and it appeared as they represented the entire state. I would not see a problem of going back to their original name, after all, the Los Angeles Angels play in Anaheim and the Tampa Bay Rays play in St. Pete.San Francisco is "The City" of the Bay Area, Oakland and San Jose are second and third fiddle.Tampa Bay is a body of water first, the name of an area second.San Jose is by far the largest city in terms of population in the region to the point that the NBC owned affiliate is located there and call themselves NBC Bay Area. The South Bay is growing at a greater pace than anywhere else in the region; hence why the 49ers want to build a stadium near their practice facility. I still think the team should be keep the Golden State moniker, but even emphasize red more since it's a color of the state flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.