Jump to content

MLB Logo&Uniform changes


UnclearInitial

Recommended Posts

Agreed. It seems that marketing departments look at all these elements of a uniform as separate rather than as part of a ... well... uniform. Everyone should know by now that the gray jersey with Chicago script and a white sock on the sleeve that has been used for 20 years is a White Sox jersey. And said jersey will likely be paired with the team's iconic black cap with the team's primary logo, not only on the field, but on most fans. No need for that logo to appear again on the sleeve to hammer the branding home.

While I agree that there is a redundancy to having it on the cap and the sleeve, I will say that in and of itself, the jersey looks great. I think that looks good on the sleeve. They probably should not have done it, but looking at it as a separate element (as you suggest they do), I think it looks better.

I disagree. I think the old patch was classy and subtle. This new one screams "Hi, we are a Chicago team named the Sox. Incase you mistook the black and gray colors and the patch with a white sock on it, we are not the Cubs." They don't need to spell it out for us. Kind of like putting wordmark on football jerseys - it isn't necessary, and it almost always makes things worse.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Seeing as how the Sox have had the same primary home and road uniforms for 20 seasons now, this new sleeve patch strikes me as the baseball equivalent of Malibu Stacy's New Hat. It accomplishes nothing, actually deteriorates their overall look, but it'll get some suckers to go, "Ooooh! New jersey!" and pony up.

I'll continue to be quite happy with the road jersey I bought in 2000.

On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said:

For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA.

PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the new Nats look. I thought the "monument" type was great and was a perfect fit for the market. If they had consistently stuck with that(including the "DC" cap logo) it would have been better. Now we have another new team trying to look like it has history when it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going by what's listed for the Indians on the main CCSL site, am I correct in saying that changes are coming for the cream-colored faux-throwbacks and the road grays, but the blue alternate and home whites are staying the same?

If true, what an odd combo to change.

http://sportslogos.net/team.php?id=57

EDIT: For what it's worth, the Tribe has all its jerseys marked down to clearance prices, so who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how eliminating a white sock improves branding for the White Sox, but this is the same marketing department that signed off on Ed Farmer doing play-by-play, so hey.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. It seems that marketing departments look at all these elements of a uniform as separate rather than as part of a ... well... uniform. Everyone should know by now that the gray jersey with Chicago script and a white sock on the sleeve that has been used for 20 years is a White Sox jersey. And said jersey will likely be paired with the team's iconic black cap with the team's primary logo, not only on the field, but on most fans. No need for that logo to appear again on the sleeve to hammer the branding home.

While I agree that there is a redundancy to having it on the cap and the sleeve, I will say that in and of itself, the jersey looks great. I think that looks good on the sleeve. They probably should not have done it, but looking at it as a separate element (as you suggest they do), I think it looks better.

I disagree. I think the old patch was classy and subtle. This new one screams "Hi, we are a Chicago team named the Sox. Incase you mistook the black and gray colors and the patch with a white sock on it, we are not the Cubs." They don't need to spell it out for us. Kind of like putting wordmark on football jerseys - it isn't necessary, and it almost always makes things worse.

Nothing more needs to be said. The Old Roman is the smartest guy on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. It seems that marketing departments look at all these elements of a uniform as separate rather than as part of a ... well... uniform. Everyone should know by now that the gray jersey with Chicago script and a white sock on the sleeve that has been used for 20 years is a White Sox jersey. And said jersey will likely be paired with the team's iconic black cap with the team's primary logo, not only on the field, but on most fans. No need for that logo to appear again on the sleeve to hammer the branding home.

While I agree that there is a redundancy to having it on the cap and the sleeve, I will say that in and of itself, the jersey looks great. I think that looks good on the sleeve. They probably should not have done it, but looking at it as a separate element (as you suggest they do), I think it looks better.

I disagree. I think the old patch was classy and subtle. This new one screams "Hi, we are a Chicago team named the Sox. Incase you mistook the black and gray colors and the patch with a white sock on it, we are not the Cubs." They don't need to spell it out for us. Kind of like putting wordmark on football jerseys - it isn't necessary, and it almost always makes things worse.

Nothing more needs to be said. The Old Roman is the smartest guy on this board.

Wow. You're definitely not trying to make friends around here are ya?

That Indians cap is completely unnecessary. What are they gonna wear it with? Unless it's replacing the navy one, which I don't believe it is. Besides, the navy one is a million times better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the heard that the Giants maybe be getting new jersey's based off of the ones from the 80's because fans wanted them... got it off the news.

Actually, fans are clamoring for them to wear, as throwbacks, uniforms that read "World Champions" on them as they did back when they won it in 1905 while still in NY. There's no mention of them returning to the 80's look. Especially when they've actually been to 2 World Series' and won one in the current uniforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. It seems that marketing departments look at all these elements of a uniform as separate rather than as part of a ... well... uniform. Everyone should know by now that the gray jersey with Chicago script and a white sock on the sleeve that has been used for 20 years is a White Sox jersey. And said jersey will likely be paired with the team's iconic black cap with the team's primary logo, not only on the field, but on most fans. No need for that logo to appear again on the sleeve to hammer the branding home.

While I agree that there is a redundancy to having it on the cap and the sleeve, I will say that in and of itself, the jersey looks great. I think that looks good on the sleeve. They probably should not have done it, but looking at it as a separate element (as you suggest they do), I think it looks better.

I disagree. I think the old patch was classy and subtle. This new one screams "Hi, we are a Chicago team named the Sox. Incase you mistook the black and gray colors and the patch with a white sock on it, we are not the Cubs." They don't need to spell it out for us. Kind of like putting wordmark on football jerseys - it isn't necessary, and it almost always makes things worse.

Nothing more needs to be said. The Old Roman is the smartest guy on this board.

Wow. You're definitely not trying to make friends around here are ya?

:blink: Do I have some sort of adverse following here?

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the heard that the Giants maybe be getting new jersey's based off of the ones from the 80's because fans wanted them... got it off the news.

Actually, fans are clamoring for them to wear, as throwbacks, uniforms that read "World Champions" on them as they did back when they won it in 1905 while still in NY. There's no mention of them returning to the 80's look. Especially when they've actually been to 2 World Series' and won one in the current uniforms.

oh.

16hw9rr.jpg

My asinine tweets: https://twitter.com/Milla_Nilla

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. It seems that marketing departments look at all these elements of a uniform as separate rather than as part of a ... well... uniform. Everyone should know by now that the gray jersey with Chicago script and a white sock on the sleeve that has been used for 20 years is a White Sox jersey. And said jersey will likely be paired with the team's iconic black cap with the team's primary logo, not only on the field, but on most fans. No need for that logo to appear again on the sleeve to hammer the branding home.

While I agree that there is a redundancy to having it on the cap and the sleeve, I will say that in and of itself, the jersey looks great. I think that looks good on the sleeve. They probably should not have done it, but looking at it as a separate element (as you suggest they do), I think it looks better.

I disagree. I think the old patch was classy and subtle. This new one screams "Hi, we are a Chicago team named the Sox. Incase you mistook the black and gray colors and the patch with a white sock on it, we are not the Cubs." They don't need to spell it out for us. Kind of like putting wordmark on football jerseys - it isn't necessary, and it almost always makes things worse.

Nothing more needs to be said. The Old Roman is the smartest guy on this board.

Wow. You're definitely not trying to make friends around here are ya?

That Indians cap is completely unnecessary. What are they gonna wear it with? Unless it's replacing the navy one, which I don't believe it is. Besides, the navy one is a million times better.

No, I guess I'm not, McFly. I'm here to talk sports / logos, and I 've contributed a lot to the conversation considering how brief my stay has been up until this point. For some reason, I get a lot of flak from jack wads like you who like to flex your intellectual muscles by making fun of people and bringing people down, while totally ignoring what value an individual brings to a thread even if they are wrong (which i will be plenty of times). The OldRoman has been on point with everything I've read. He's cordial, interesting and well-spoken. We should all be a little more like him on this board. And a little less like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.