Evolution of the current Buffalo Sabres identity.

[Gothamite]

The two need not be synonymous. You're admitting that they're iconic, which was the point.

[Eye]

The two need not be synonymous. You're admitting that they're iconic, which was the point.

Of course they aren't synonymous, but too many people mix them up for being just that.

The Sabres logo isn't iconic, however. It's dated, while the Canadiens and Packers have sort of good logos that have become iconic.

[tBBP]

Another possible criterion for "iconic" - if the team abandons it, the fanbase insists that they bring it back.

That got a legitimate chuckle out of me.

See...I knew I'd do some good by popping open that can of worms and, well, opening up some (mostly) intelligent civil discussion rather than just tossing out random jibberish. All that said, maybe I should chime back in. (Bear in the mind the following is just my own two cents on the matter.)

By dictionary definition, "classic" can pretty much be summarized as something of the highest standard, or a benchmark; something that becomes often imitated, either in style or in execution. Or, if one wants to go the Wiki route, "a perfect example of a particular style , something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality". (But then, what determines "lasting worth" or "timeless quality"? It's all subjective. The easiest thing for people to point to is championships.) On the other side, some dictionaries will tell you "iconic" refers to something indicative of an "icon"--which itself can be defined as a picture or portrait (or, in this case, a logo), clearly representative of a group of people, or ideas. I think that's where the "instantly recognizable" piece factors in...and while that could also be applied to "classic", I also like to think one other criteria should be added to the definition of "classic": "simple yet effective. So I guess the best way to sum those two up would be this: classic = simple, functional, and "timeless"; iconic = clearly and effectively representative.

When judged against all that, I can see why so many logomaniacs view the Houston Texans' logo as an instant classic. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who can either find fault with that logo or try to find some way to improve upon it. First and foremost, the thing works just as well in black and white as it does in color, and the whole thing is made up of only three shapes--one of which is the (watch this) iconic image of Texas, a star, as Texas is the "lone star state". To add to that, many people automatically associate cowboys and cattle with Texas, so the image of a steer fits (my) "iconic" definition, as well. After long thought, I think really only one other logo can really fit into that mold: that of the Chicago Bulls. I think that thing came out in what, 1966 or something like that? And it still looks as if it could have been introduced in more recent years...it's that good. Now true, I'm sure it could stand a little bit of modernization, but, at least in my eyes, it doesn't look the part of a product of the '60s (or '70s or '80s for that matter).

Now true...some might say several other logos might fall into that category, for instance, the aforementioned Canadiens' logo, or any of the Original Six NHL logos. Well actually, the Boston Bruins' logo could make a case...but last I checked, a bruin is a bear, and that crest is, well, not a bear, so it falls short on the "iconic" part. Classic? Sure...but not necessarily iconic, in my mind anyway. I just know no one better even think of trying to lump the Oakland Raiders logo into this discussion.

Anyway, these are just my own thoughts, since I brought the topic up to begin with. (Probably should have started up a new thread on this, so as not to deviate from the discussion of the Sabres' identity evolution...if enough people think I should, I just might.)

[BBTV]

I've always felt that a strong sports logo has to pass the "book cover" test. Can an 8-year old do a reasonably good job of drawing it on their book cover (do they have brown paper book covers anymore?)

Overly detailed logos are no good. Strong, bold, simple logos are IMO the best - Devils, Flyers, Canadiens, etc. I would say that the Philadelphia Eagles eagle-head logo is as detailed as you should go on a sports logo. Any more and you have book cover fail.

So basically:

>

[IceCap]

I've always felt that a strong sports logo has to pass the "book cover" test. Can an 8-year old do a reasonably good job of drawing it on their book cover (do they have brown paper book covers anymore?)

Overly detailed logos are no good. Strong, bold, simple logos are IMO the best - Devils, Flyers, Canadiens, etc. I would say that the Philadelphia Eagles eagle-head logo is as detailed as you should go on a sports logo. Any more and you have book cover fail.

The book cover test is brilliant.

[tBBP]

I've always felt that a strong sports logo has to pass the "book cover" test. Can an 8-year old do a reasonably good job of drawing it on their book cover (do they have brown paper book covers anymore?)

Overly detailed logos are no good. Strong, bold, simple logos are IMO the best - Devils, Flyers, Canadiens, etc. I would say that the Philadelphia Eagles eagle-head logo is as detailed as you should go on a sports logo. Any more and you have book cover fail.

The book cover test is brilliant.

And also fits into my little "simple yet effective" ideal, as well.

(And no..I don't know if the brown paper book covers still exist anymore...Vet took me back with that one.)

[IceCap]

They do.

[The_Admiral]

Now true...some might say several other logos might fall into that category, for instance, the aforementioned Canadiens' logo, or any of the Original Six NHL logos. Well actually, the Boston Bruins' logo could make a case...but last I checked, a bruin is a bear, and that crest is, well, not a bear, so it falls short on the "iconic" part. Classic? Sure...but not necessarily iconic, in my mind anyway.

For whatever it's worth, the Bruins' spoked B is supposed to be a visual representation of the "Hub of the Universe" nickname. Once you know this (it's not exactly the most common nickname for the place), it's a cool icon for Boston.

[Morgan33]

I've always felt that a strong sports logo has to pass the "book cover" test. Can an 8-year old do a reasonably good job of drawing it on their book cover (do they have brown paper book covers anymore?)

Overly detailed logos are no good. Strong, bold, simple logos are IMO the best - Devils, Flyers, Canadiens, etc. I would say that the Philadelphia Eagles eagle-head logo is as detailed as you should go on a sports logo. Any more and you have book cover fail.

The book cover test is brilliant.

Book cover test is brilliant... for determining if a team has a classic logo. But that doesn't necessarily mean only classic logos are good. For example teams established in the 90's or 00's should not try and have a classic logo (ie: Tampa). Avalanche have a detailed logo but It's well designed and suits them well.

On another note, Im positive an 8 year old could not draw the Sabres "Classic" logo on a book cover... not well anyways

[tBBP]

Now true...some might say several other logos might fall into that category, for instance, the aforementioned Canadiens' logo, or any of the Original Six NHL logos. Well actually, the Boston Bruins' logo could make a case...but last I checked, a bruin is a bear, and that crest is, well, not a bear, so it falls short on the "iconic" part. Classic? Sure...but not necessarily iconic, in my mind anyway.

For whatever it's worth, the Bruins' spoked B is supposed to be a visual representation of the "Hub of the Universe" nickname. Once you know this (it's not exactly the most common nickname for the place), it's a cool icon for Boston.

You learn something new every day...very interesting.

After some quick research, apparently that nickname goes all the way back to Oliver Wendall Holmes, who deemed the Massachusetts State House Building as the Hub of the Solar System. Sometime between 1858 and now, it got turned into the "Hub of the Universe". And now that we know that, the Bruins' crest makes perfect sense...an "iconic" logo, indeed.

And actually, now that Ad's done brought that up, it also raises yet another good question about "iconic" sports logos: representative of the city/location, or representative of the team nickname? As we now see in the case of the Bruins, that crest is more an icon of the city itself...and really, what's more indicative of a "hub" than a representation of a wheel and spokes? (Not that this has anything to do with this conversation, but for what it's worth, the downtown area of Detroit also seems to be somewhat designed around that same principle...with the core being the hub, and several main thoroughfares, most notable Woodward Avenue, radiating out as "spokes", per se.) In regards to the Texans, well, that logo really doesn't represent Houston itself, nor should it...the nickname represents the entire state, and does so mighty well, for reasons I've mentioned upthread somewhere.

In the case of the Bulls, I suppose one would need to know a little bit of history behind it--that being, the Bulls nickname might well have been inspired by the Chicago Stags team that preceded it in Chicago. Either way, its an angry bull that hasn't changed in 40-some odd years, and still looks relatively fresh today. Both classic and iconic...even more so thanks to the the repeat three-peat of Jordan/Pippen/et al.

(Now I know I'm delving way too deep into semantics here with some of this stuff...but this is how my brain works, sometimes to my detriment.)

Now, as some others have said, I think it's entirely possible to have a classic/non-iconic logo or an iconic/non-classic logo, depending on how one defines the two words. I'm hard-pressed to think of good examples of either right now (working 14-hour rotations will do that to you), but if I can think up some later, I will...if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

[BBTV]

I've always felt that a strong sports logo has to pass the "book cover" test. Can an 8-year old do a reasonably good job of drawing it on their book cover (do they have brown paper book covers anymore?)

Overly detailed logos are no good. Strong, bold, simple logos are IMO the best - Devils, Flyers, Canadiens, etc. I would say that the Philadelphia Eagles eagle-head logo is as detailed as you should go on a sports logo. Any more and you have book cover fail.

The book cover test is brilliant.

Book cover test is brilliant... for determining if a team has a classic logo. But that doesn't necessarily mean only classic logos are good. For example teams established in the 90's or 00's should not try and have a classic logo (ie: Tampa). Avalanche have a detailed logo but It's well designed and suits them well.

On another note, Im positive an 8 year old could not draw the Sabres "Classic" logo on a book cover... not well anyways

There are plenty of logos that pass the book cover test that certainly aren't classic, and there are a number of classic logos that aren't iconic. Not all logos that pass the book cover test are classic and/or iconic, but every classic/iconic logo passes the book cover test (IMO).

New lightning passes the test, but is neither classic nor iconic. Blackhawks logo fails the test yet is still classic.

The "classic" Sabres logo is a tough one for me. I kind of lean toward "dated" rather than "classic", but I can understand why people feel it's "classic", so I'll go with that for now. It has a lot of the trademarks that I look for in a logo - only a few colors, clear separation between said colors (no light color touching another light color), no shading / shadowing (it's "flat", so looks the same in any application), just solid colored shapes. That being said, there is some detail in it (handles of the sabres, buffalo's legs, etc.) that could make it fail the book cover test. It's very close though. I'd probably pass it, though I think that what that says is that a slight AZ Cardinals-esque modernization could bring it up to classic-iconic status.

[FGWB]

It's only meant to represent a team. Not to be stared at in an art museum.

The logo gets the point across of the city and team in a simplistic way.

[IceCap]

I've always felt that a strong sports logo has to pass the "book cover" test. Can an 8-year old do a reasonably good job of drawing it on their book cover (do they have brown paper book covers anymore?)

Overly detailed logos are no good. Strong, bold, simple logos are IMO the best - Devils, Flyers, Canadiens, etc. I would say that the Philadelphia Eagles eagle-head logo is as detailed as you should go on a sports logo. Any more and you have book cover fail.

The book cover test is brilliant.

Book cover test is brilliant... for determining if a team has a classic logo. But that doesn't necessarily mean only classic logos are good. For example teams established in the 90's or 00's should not try and have a classic logo (ie: Tampa). Avalanche have a detailed logo but It's well designed and suits them well.

I would say Tampa Bay's previous/current logo, while not a "classic" style logo, still passes the book cover test. Circle, lightning bolt, and TAMPA BAY script. Easy enough to doodle.

To the larger point, teams shouldn't pretend they're Original Six teams, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't attempt to have a nice, clean logo.

On another note, Im positive an 8 year old could not draw the Sabres "Classic" logo on a book cover... not well anyways.

I think they could. The hardest part would be the buffalo, but I'm sure an 8 year old could ballpark it. They would certainly have an easier time at it then the goat head logo.

[Drakonius26]

The book cover test is really confusing to me. The Lakers, Celtics, Dodgers, Yankees, Steelers, Cowboys, Maple Leafs, and Canadiens, all have iconic and simple logos that are timeless for the most part. While the artistic ability for most young children can vary quite a bit, I really don't see how it brings the logo down at all if a child can doodle it on their book. It seems like BFSB to me.

[BBTV]

The book cover test is really confusing to me. The Lakers, Celtics, Dodgers, Yankees, Steelers, Cowboys, Maple Leafs, and Canadiens, all have iconic and simple logos that are timeless for the most part. While the artistic ability for most young children can vary quite a bit, I really don't see how it brings the logo down at all if a child can doodle it on their book. It seems like BFSB to me.

It doesn't. The point of the "test" is exactly the opposite.

[Drakonius26]

The book cover test is really confusing to me. The Lakers, Celtics, Dodgers, Yankees, Steelers, Cowboys, Maple Leafs, and Canadiens, all have iconic and simple logos that are timeless for the most part. While the artistic ability for most young children can vary quite a bit, I really don't see how it brings the logo down at all if a child can doodle it on their book. It seems like BFSB to me.

It doesn't. The point of the "test" is exactly the opposite.

Oh, okay. My bad. As I read through the conversation, the tone seemed to signify that, and it seemed like a case of BFSB to me.

[SilverNRed]

How is it "nonsensical"? Outside of this forum, I've never seen that Sabres logo referred to as a classic, and most of the people who insist it's a classic on here are Sabres fans.

Most hockey fans i've ever spoken with say that the original Sabres logo is a great hockey crest, and is indeed a classic. These aren't Sabres fans.

Is the logo filled with shadows, seven colors, 3-d effects, gradients? No, but that is what makes it a good logo. It gets the message across. "Buffalo" and "Sabres". Simple, and yes, classic. Like the Devils "NJ" with the horns and tail. Not flashy, but simple. Classic. Does it's job, is pleasing to look at, and INSTANTLY recognizable.

Seriously. Every hockey fan I've ever met has said they've liked (or loved) the original Sabres logo when talking about classic uniforms. Not to mention that every "away" broadcast I've seen on Centre Ice this year has praised the team going to an updated version of their original.

Literally the only people I've ever seen who hate the original logo are here on this message board, where you can find people capable of saying they love or hate ANY logo in ANY sport just to make a point. Oh boy.

[hockey week]

The Sabres current/original logo tells you enough information that someone who has never seen the team, might be able to guess what the name is.

Isn't that the point of a logo? To be recognizable? It's right there, almost like hieroglyphics, Buffalo + Sabres.

The book cover test is probably a very good rule of thumb, but it is not perfect. the new Lightning logo is one of the highest scoring logos on this test, perhaps ever. Yet it has been widely ridiculed for being "too simple." There's a lot of subjection here. I like it, but one must also recognize its flaws.

Personally, I use the following criteria:

1) does it tell you the team nickname? (Sabres, Penguins, Patriots, Sharks)

2) does it tell you the city, or is it indicative of something about a city or its past? (Penguins-golden triangle, Patriots-Revolutionary War, Texans-steer, Bruins-Hub)

3) does it tell you the sport? (Patriot throwback-snapping a football, Penguins-hockey stick, Cardinals-baseball bat, Buccaneers-football)

4) does it look cool/menacing? Could it be considered iconic? (this is where the book cover test might be applied) (Patriot throwback, Sharks, Vikings, Packers, Texans, Wild)

If it passes at least two of those, I consider it an ok-to-decent logo. 3 or 4, a great logo. On my scale, it would make Pat Patriot the best sports logo ever. It's not hard to figure out a patriot, Boston was where the Revolution started so minutemen are relevant, he's snapping a football, and I think it looks pretty cool. The problem (and one should always acknowledge drawbacks) is that the Islanders Fisherman logo also scores really high on those criteria. To each their own.

The Sabres original tells you the nickname, tells you the city (kinda cheating, since a buffalo is not that relevant, but it IS the city's name), does not tell you the sport, and it looks pretty solid.

The Sabres goathead did not tell you the nickname, tells you the city (see original logo), does not tell you the sport, and looks fierce.

The Sabres slug did not tell you the nickname, deriving the city name would take some thinking, does not tell you the sport, and evokes so many comparisons and even abstract thoughts that I cannot say it looks good.

[Billy B]

Most of that is pretty reasonable, but I'd argue against your 3rd point. A logo shouldn't have to tell you what sport the team is playing, people should be able to figure out what sport they're watching without looking at the logo.

[Morgan33]

On another note, Im positive an 8 year old could not draw the Sabres "Classic" logo on a book cover... not well anyways.

I think they could. The hardest part would be the buffalo, but I'm sure an 8 year old could ballpark it. They would certainly have an easier time at it then the goat head logo.

Come to think of it, your right. The logo already looks like it was drawn by an 8 year old so Im sure one could reproduce it quite well