north dakota

Golden State Warriors unveil new logo + uniform

Recommended Posts

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 B) 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're having to qualify that things could have been done better, it's not a fantastic logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised this wasn't posted. This was on UniWatch today.

4734929218_dbc191881d_o.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised this wasn't posted. This was on UniWatch today.

4734929218_dbc191881d_o.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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??? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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??? :rolleyes:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "SF" is there to mean the San Francisco Bay Area, not just the city proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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??? :rolleyes:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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??? :rolleyes:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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??? :rolleyes:

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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??? :rolleyes:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 CA

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.