Indians' Identity

[The_Admiral]

If you include the Washington Senators, the Twins have been just as committed to red/white/blue as the Indians, so it's really just a matter of whose color palette can be improved upon more. Me, I say Cleveland, with the Twins only requiring a standardization of the palette (navy trimmed in red on white, white trimmed in red on navy) and a few tweaks to the existing art (connect the tail to the a in "Minnesota," please).

[Gothamite]

Is it dated because it came from the '70s? Funny, it doesn't look like something from the '70s, even though it was.

I do actually think it looks like something from the '70s. I am usually partial to obviously-hand drawn letterforms, but that one leaves me cold.

[tBBP]

First off, although we have a problem with too many blue and red teams, the Indians shouldn't change. They have been wearing those colors for 111 years as far as I know, so we will have to live with it. Secondly, I don't like the concept of brown and red. Those colors might work together as brown pants with a red sweater, but they couldn't work together on a sports design. Red is far too close to brown, and I don't think the colors go particularly well together, anyway. Orange goes with brown, yellow goes with brown, and even light blue and light green go with brown. Red just doesn't.

If the red is vibrant enough and the brown is dark enough, the combo works as well as red and black. The Chiefs' red and the Browns' current shade of brown would be a fine combo, for example. Of course, if you don't particularly like the combo, then there's not really anything that can be done about that sort of personal bias. If you don't like it, you don't like it, and you have that right, but I do think the colors can work fine.

I'll do you one better, Andrew...I know they can work together. How? Both my bedroom and the settings on my dining room table back up in my apartment are decked out in that combo. And it does look mighty good, to me anyway. (I think sometimes people should go take a stroll through Meijer's or HyVee or Menards or whatever the local housewares store is--or Wal-Mart if that's the only option--and go check out the living room and bathroom sets...you might see some mighty interesting color combos you might not have ever thought would work otherwise.)

If you include the Washington Senators, the Twins have been just as committed to red/white/blue as the Indians, so it's really just a matter of whose color palette can be improved upon more. Me, I say Cleveland, with the Twins only requiring a standardization of the palette (navy trimmed in red on white, white trimmed in red on navy) and a few tweaks to the existing art (connect the tail to the a in "Minnesota," please).

I'm not saying the Twins should change colors, but I've always felt that if they ever did, they should look at adopting the Wild's color scheme. Even though purple is the first color thing to come to my mind when I think of Minnesota (and no, Prince Rogers has nothing to do with it ), the Wild's scheme just seems more, well, Minnesota, to me, especially now that I done drove through there as much as I have.

But yeah, back to the Indians...I still think that a vibrant red and a dulled-down brown (like Andy suggested) would work better than most folks realize.

[UnclearInitial]

First off, although we have a problem with too many blue and red teams, the Indians shouldn't change. They have been wearing those colors for 111 years as far as I know, so we will have to live with it. Secondly, I don't like the concept of brown and red. Those colors might work together as brown pants with a red sweater, but they couldn't work together on a sports design. Red is far too close to brown, and I don't think the colors go particularly well together, anyway. Orange goes with brown, yellow goes with brown, and even light blue and light green go with brown. Red just doesn't.

Agree, red just doesn't look good with brown. If they had to change colors, I'd much rather see navy and Cavs wine.

[andrewharrington]

First off, although we have a problem with too many blue and red teams, the Indians shouldn't change. They have been wearing those colors for 111 years as far as I know, so we will have to live with it. Secondly, I don't like the concept of brown and red. Those colors might work together as brown pants with a red sweater, but they couldn't work together on a sports design. Red is far too close to brown, and I don't think the colors go particularly well together, anyway. Orange goes with brown, yellow goes with brown, and even light blue and light green go with brown. Red just doesn't.

Agree, red just doesn't look good with brown. If they had to change colors, I'd much rather see navy and Cavs wine.

Agree to disagree, I guess. These look great, at least to me.

[BBTV]

Right. There's a big difference between "I don't like red with brown" and "red doesn't go with brown". One is personal taste and therefore inarguable, the other is certainly arguable... and I'd argue that it's incorrect. While it wouldn't be my first choice to go with brown (orange and gray would be ahead of it), IMO red definitely "goes" with brown. They're both warm colors (at least I think brown is considered warm) and if the brown is dark enough (maybe a black-brown) there will be no chance of clashing or blending. I don't think that the light-brown suede parts of those shoes would go well with red, but the dark brown looks great. I'd wear'em.

[The_Admiral]

Brown is a warm color, yeah. Blue and green are both cool colors, and everyone here seems to love blue and green together.

But yeah, a rich, dark brown with a standard shade of red would be no harder to discern from each other than black and red. It would just have more character, since no one else is doing it.

[crashcarson15]

No New Era cap truly matches the Majestic navy jerseys. You see it with the Brewers as well - doesn't mean they have two blues.

But the home hat is a different shade than the road hat. I own both "authentic on-field hats" and the home one is lighter.

Let me guess...home cap color on the left, road cap color on the right?:

<--->

Yeah, that seems right.

[GeorgesL]

I, for one, think the Indians' uniforms were fine the way they were. I don't understand why they want to dull it up by, for example, go with a block lettering on the road uniforms. They changed the uniforms in 1994, the year they moved into Jacobs Field/Progressive Field, they should stick with them.

[TheOldRoman]

I think brown and red are too close chromatically. Sure, I like blue and green together, but in most instances (such as the old Mavericks, the colors were too close that any outlines got lost against the other color. I think if you are to use brown, you go with a bold brown, like what the Browns wore in the '90s. Their current dark brown color sucks and appears black on TV in in photos under numerous lighting settings. There are certain colors that will work well in certain areas, but not for sports teams. Brown and red is one of them. A bedspread might incorporate those colors and look good, but on a sports uniform, with accent colors used in ways they have traditionally been used, I don't think the colors would work well together. Regardless of me finding the combination ugly myself, I don't think it could work well on a sports uniform. There are other color schemes I am not personally fond of that work well on uniforms.

[oldschoolvikings]

Brown is a warm color, yeah. Blue and green are both cool colors, and everyone here seems to love blue and green together.

But yeah, a rich, dark brown with a standard shade of red would be no harder to discern from each other than black and red. It would just have more character, since no one else is doing it.

Well, I hate to jump in with annoying details, but since I teach a Color Theory course at a design school, I can't really help myself.

Brown is actually a neutral. Like gray... gray is a neutral, but it is an achromatic neutral, meaning a neutral NOT created from other colors (black and white being non-colors, of course). Brown (all browns, which would be a huge and varied list) are Chromatic neutrals, meaning neutrals created by combining all 3 primary colors. As such, brown could be warm (if the mix leaned to the reds or yellows) or cool (if the mix had more blue). I think the hues most people picture when hearing the word "brown" are slightly redder... most wood browns, skin tones, etc. But as a created neutral, you could lean it any side of the color wheel you want.

So, you could absolutely make a brown that "goes" with red... you just have to find the right one.

[McCall]

Neutral colors are different with sports. White is the ONLY neutral color. Every other color is just another color.

Neutral = white

Non-Neutral = every other color

[oldschoolvikings]

Neutral colors are different with sports. White is the ONLY neutral color. Every other color is just another color.

Neutral = white

Non-Neutral = every other color

Well, we were discussing whether brown was warm or cool... as a created neutral, it can be either.

[andrewharrington]

Neutral colors are different with sports. White is the ONLY neutral color. Every other color is just another color.

Neutral = white

Non-Neutral = every other color

Well, we were discussing whether brown was warm or cool... as a created neutral, it can be either.

Any dark, chromatic neutral can be tinted warm or cool, regardless of whether the hue itself is inherently warm or cool to begin with. Brown is inherently warm, but can be tinted warmer or cooler. Navy blue is inherently cool, but can be tinted cooler or or warmer. Same with forest green, burgundy or charcoal.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

I don't mind the Indians' two wordmarks of different styles (script and block) on principle. But I think that they have in their history a much better wordmark that they ought to be using, and ought never to have stopped using:

Now, the cap logo -- that I do object to on principle. And, even here, there exists within their history a superior cap logo, the one that goes with this wormark:

Put this that wordmark on their new, clean, white home jerseys; keep the block road wordmark; use the cap shown above; and Bob's-your-uncle.

Thank you, sir! I've been wading through the pages of this to suggest that. If it were blue around red the lettered script would look mighty keen. However, I think the Indians script is beautiful and has become iconic for their franchise. As much as I like the above Indians lettering, I wouldn't want to see it become the home uniform script. Maybe an alternate, or incorporated in the primary logo the way it was in the team's previous primary.

No, the main thing in your post I agree with is the cap logo. I enjoy the block-letter C as an alternate in conjunction with the throwback. The red version doesn't match given that everything worn with the throwback is blue (although I mocked it up with a red shirt and socks and it actually looks pretty spiffy). However, the C is WAY too boring to be a full-time cap logo, even with the addition of a feather. The Indians are a very quirky and light-hearted franchise. That's why I like Wahoo. I think he fits that, even though he may not be the best-looking caricature. He's also reached an iconic stature even higher than where I hold the script. The franchise does not deserve such a boring cap.

A single block letter is completely devoid of any character. The Boston B, the Oakland A, even the simple San Francisco SF and Los Angeles LA are all unique and character-filled fonts, where as the alternate C is just a simple block C. I think that if ANY C should replace Wahoo on any of the uniforms, it should be the above C. The wihsbone has already been adopted full-time by the Reds and the curly C seems a bit too light and airy. I would accept Wahoo leaving the caps if it is replaced by the above C.

Meanwhile, on the blue and red issue, I don't understand what's with all the hate for the abundance of the color. Yes, it's greatly used across the leagues, but that's not a bad thing. It's a combination that looks good.

Here:

All of these teams wear red, white, and navy, but they all do it in their unique ways with their unique identities. Why does every team need to have a unique color set? These teams share a color scheme but they wear the same colors differently, and just look at them! Do any of them look alike? Could you mistake any team for the other? No! They're all unique in their own way. I could agree that the Washington and Atlanta aways are a bit close, but they're the closest, and they'll never be on the same field outside of the All-Star Game.

Sorry for the picture overload. I hope anyone quoting this will cut at least some of the pics out. XD

[andrewharrington]

A block C has just as much character as any other letterform. Simplicity is a charcteristic. Minimalism is a characteristic. Utility. Grit. These are all characteristics that embody the Indians' style of block lettering. Curves and swashes don't equal character. The Dodgers' cap letters are simpler than the Indians' are, but there are two of them. A cap with just the L or A from the Dodgers' insignia would not please you. I don't know where the notion that identities must be energetic and lively came about. A serious, subdued identity is perfectly legitimate, as long as it follows sound visual planning, coordinates well, and has some sort of uniqueness about it. I also like my identities to have some sort of ties to the roots of the game. There's nobody that has a uniform quite like the Indians since they went to that block C, and that's why the aesthetic they're (slowly) implementing is successful.

[vmd9]

A block C has just as much character as any other letterform. Simplicity is a charcteristic. Minimalism is a characteristic. Utility. Grit. These are all characteristics that embody the Indians' style of block lettering. Curves and swashes don't equal character. The Dodgers' cap letters are simpler than the Indians' are, but there are two of them. A cap with just the L or A from the Dodgers' insignia would not please you. I don't know where the notion that identities must be energetic and lively came about. A serious, subdued identity is perfectly legitimate, as long as it follows sound visual planning, coordinates well, and has some sort of uniqueness about it. I also like my identities to have some sort of ties to the roots of the game. There's nobody that has a uniform quite like the Indians since they went to that block C, and that's why the aesthetic they're (slowly) implementing is successful.

I agree, it looks good and that is all I care about. People can say it's plain or boring, but in reality how many teams in baseball have boring uniforms or logos? Most are pretty simple, and most if not all of the hats use a single letter or monogram on the hat. And people need to stop thinking they should change their colors. This team has been around for over 100 years, red white and blue are their colors and brown/red or pink/purple or green/orange or whatever strange combo they can think of.

What really matters

Do the fans like it? yes

Do the players like it? yes

Does it sell? yes

Does it represent the team well? yes

But hey aren't Cleveland fans dumb anyway?

[winghaz]

Time for my comment about Chief Wahoo:

I hate to say it, but I like Chief Wahoo. The logo is extremely racist, outdated, just about everything bad one can say about a logo.

But when I think of the Cleveland Indians' identity, I often picture Chief Wahoo. It just represents the Cleveland Indians. And when I think of that logo, I don't think of the racist aspects of the logo. Heck, I don't even think of what is in that logo. I don't think of the bad cartoon face. I don't think of the huge smile. I just think of the Cleveland Indians, the team.

I'm sure my attitude would be different if I were American Indian.

I know, though, that my liking the logo doesn't make it right. Chief Wahoo has to go. But I have no crystal ball to picture when the team's management will decide that that logo will go.

I kind of wish the Indians would buy the Fighting Sioux logo from the University of North Dakota, now that that logo will be retired. It's a fantastic logo, one designed by an American Indian. Just change some of the coloring a little bit, and it would be a great fit for Cleveland. The chances of this happening are extremely remote, but it would be nice.

[The_Admiral]

If Major League weren't such a classic, Chief Wahoo would've been long gone without a care, but alas.

Hey guys, #WINNING!!!!! lololololololololol

[BBTV]

Brown is a warm color, yeah. Blue and green are both cool colors, and everyone here seems to love blue and green together.

But yeah, a rich, dark brown with a standard shade of red would be no harder to discern from each other than black and red. It would just have more character, since no one else is doing it.

Well, I hate to jump in with annoying details, but since I teach a Color Theory course at a design school, I can't really help myself.

Brown is actually a neutral. Like gray... gray is a neutral, but it is an achromatic neutral, meaning a neutral NOT created from other colors (black and white being non-colors, of course). Brown (all browns, which would be a huge and varied list) are Chromatic neutrals, meaning neutrals created by combining all 3 primary colors. As such, brown could be warm (if the mix leaned to the reds or yellows) or cool (if the mix had more blue). I think the hues most people picture when hearing the word "brown" are slightly redder... most wood browns, skin tones, etc. But as a created neutral, you could lean it any side of the color wheel you want.

So, you could absolutely make a brown that "goes" with red... you just have to find the right one.

That's interesting stuff. As a non-designer, I love learning from posts like these.

What is the design definition of "neutral" then? I always thought of "neutral" meaning that it can be put along side of any color without clashing, yet I would never put brown with black (it'd have to be a very light shade of brown, and even then I probably wouldn't do it.)