Contemporary Classics?

[The Imperfect]

So what are some logos, uniforms, or overall schemes that have been created in the past 20 years, you feel are on their way to being defined as modern-day classics or something down the line in 60 years people will consider classic and refuse to change...?

One for me has to be the Denver Broncos logo. It's still relatively new having been first used in 1997, but is already associated with the final Super Bowl for John Elway and maybe incorrectly more associated with his later great teams than the original classic. Give decades of time on this logo and I don't see it being changed. It's got a perfect modern design about it with really no flaws whatsoever, and is a very popular logo nationwide (think of all the little league and high school rip-offs of this logo).

It may be pretty early on this one, but considering how long the Detroit Lions kept their original logo and how controversial the rebrand was, AND how great the re-design turned out to be, this logo has enough elements and contemporary design elements for it's change not to feel necessary for a long time to come.

The Houston Texans have a pretty great logo IMO. They are the newest NFL team from 2002, so it's only been ten years from now we've had this logo around, and I don't think it's lost its touch and may not from a long time. I mean, what else could define a team named the Texans so perfectly? It's a bold, simple, two-toned statement which many other logos and their designers try to achieve and perfect.

The Washington Nationals I think are using a look that should last a few decades. While I could see a change in the scripts and logos, I don't see them messing with the swirly 'W' logo as well as the team's color scheme and name. Although I feel the shade of gold will be tampered with, overall they look pretty set to define an era of their original identity.

Colorado was pretty successful early on in their history, and definitely have a very modern color scheme, while the logo itself hasn't been changed since it's unveiling in 1995. With a few more Stanley Cups for Colorado in the coming years, I don't see this logo being changed unless history :censored:s on the Avalanche.

Anyone else?

[ARTnSocal]

This was definitely a great logo change:

I never liked the big D that they used to wear especially that shade of silhouette blue they had on their helmets. I always liked their '66 throwback with the bucking bronco star-eyed logo. They wore both versions in 1994 for NFL-75 and would like to see them return to wear twice a season as a throwbacks. It has a very 60s like look to it. They should of used 'em in 2009 instead of those trashy looking 1960 brown-mustard look with the bowling socks which they had burned back in the day.

Great logo indeed ... Houston was also considering a white helmet with this logo before the navy won out. The white didn't look half-bad IMO.

Looks good ... but other than 1924 with the generic looking 'W', they never really had much of a winning tradition to establish any identity .. the curly-cue W is a great look

Great logo .... no need to change it.

[IceCap]

This is, in my opinion, the perfect example of how to update a classic logo.

Agreed with the Texans. This is a team that got their logo and uniforms right on the first go-around. The Texans are the first team to come to mind when I hear "modern/contemporary classic."

The Wild's original set was near perfect, another example of a new team that got it right on the first try. Unlike the Texans, however, they've messed it up. None of their sweaters look bad, but their inability to commit to a design, and the marginalization of their fantastic primary, hurt their overall look.

You can debate how "new" this logo is, but it still qualifies in my opinion, having come after the Original Six and Expansion Six eras. It's a fantastic logo, one of the NHL's best. The Devils have said that they want to emulate traditional powerhouse teams like the Canadiens and Celtics. In so far as their logos and uniforms, they've succeeded.

This one's a bit controversial. The RCAF theme is both timeless and appropriate. I see this thing sticking around for a long time.

For years I said the Blue Jays just needed to go back to their World Series-era set. When I heard they were going to "update" that look I was worried, because the 1997 update was, in my opinion, inferior to what came before. I was pleasantly surprised though. The new Blue Jays look is simply fantastic. One of the best in baseball.

I'm kind of on the fence about this logo from a personal standpoint, but there's no denying that it has the qualities needed to become a modern classic. A simple, yet unique, colour scheme (not just in the NBA but the big four) and an iconic logo.

The only MLS logo that I felt fit. This thing is just gorgeous, and I love that the DTOM rattlesnake is getting use somewhere.

[The Imperfect]

This is, in my opinion, the perfect example of how to update a classic logo.

Agreed with the Texans. This is a team that got their logo and uniforms right on the first go-around. The Texans are the first team to come to mind when I hear "modern/contemporary classic."

The Wild's original set was near perfect, another example of a new team that got it right on the first try. Unlike the Texans, however, they've messed it up. None of their sweaters look bad, but their inability to commit to a design, and the marginalization of their fantastic primary, hurt their overall look.

You can debate how "new" this logo is, but it still qualifies in my opinion, having come after the Original Six and Expansion Six eras. It's a fantastic logo, one of the NHL's best. The Devils have said that they want to emulate traditional powerhouse teams like the Canadiens and Celtics. In so far as their logos and uniforms, they've succeeded.

This one's a bit controversial. The RCAF theme is both timeless and appropriate. I see this thing sticking around for a long time.

For years I said the Blue Jays just needed to go back to their World Series-era set. When I heard they were going to "update" that look I was worried, because the 1997 update was, in my opinion, inferior to what came before. I was pleasantly surprised though. The new Blue Jays look is simply fantastic. One of the best in baseball.

I'm kind of on the fence about this logo from a personal standpoint, but there's no denying that it has the qualities needed to become a modern classic. A simple, yet unique, colour scheme (not just in the NBA but the big four) and an iconic logo.

The only MLS logo that I felt fit. This thing is just gorgeous, and I love that the DTOM rattlesnake is getting use somewhere.

The Cardinals logo was close to being on my list, but a part of me doesn't know if you can count modern updates of classic franchise logos as a contemporary classic because the original idea of it itself was not designed in the last 20 years.

With the Wild I've heard so many different opinions on the logo, something tells me at some point they will change that logo within the next 40-50 years.

The New Jersey Devils I definitely would have posted as well, but I don't know, it's been around since 1982 and IMO is absolutely perfect for the team and it's name, but is 1982 too long to be considered a modern classic?

As for the Winnipeg Jets, IMO they'll update or rebrand themselves within the next 30 years. I honestly don't see that logo sticking around for a long time.

I don't think you can call that Blue Jays look a modern-classic considering they only switched to that logo and look because it was such a classic look everyone adores from the late 70's, 80's and early 90's.

The Nets I'm on the fence about. I could completely see the team sticking with the look colors and logo forever, while another part of me sees the team trying a bunch of different looks throughout the coming years specifically for selling jerseys and marketing purposes.

I'm iffy about the Philadelphia Union. I absolutely hate their colors, but I think the logo itself is very good. It will probably stick around for a long time because soccer clubs pretty much NEVER change their colors or logos.

Speaking of the MLS there's one logo I absolutely adore and believe will never be changed...

Very original design about it, plus it has everything you could ask for when creating an identity for a Canadian soccer team from Toronto.

[IceCap]

The Cardinals logo was close to being on my list, but a part of me doesn't know if you can count modern updates of classic franchise logos as a contemporary classic because the original idea of it itself was not designed in the last 20 years.

You included the Lions' update. I assumed updates of classics were fair game.

With the Wild I've heard so many different opinions on the logo, something tells me at some point they will change that logo within the next 40-50 years.

With the direction the team's going, rolling out a new good yet disconnected uniform set every few years, it wouldn't surprise me. Doesn't make the original logo/set any less of a modern classic, in my opinion.

The New Jersey Devils I definitely would have posted as well, but I don't know, it's been around since 1982 and IMO is absolutely perfect for the team and it's name, but is 1982 too long to be considered a modern classic?

Well like I said, that's debatable. When people talk classic NHL logos they usually talk about the Original Six era (Rangers, Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Bruins, Red Wings, Blackhawks), the Expansion Six era (Blues, North Stars, Flyers, the old purple and gold Kings, Penguins) or the era that immediately followed (Sabres, Islanders, Canucks' stick in rink). While the Devils' logo is thirty years old, it came about after what I would consider the end of the "classic" era of the NHL. That era that it's from is sort of in a grey space. Not so old to be considered a classic era, yet not new enough to be really be considered recent. So given the grey area I threw it in.

As for the Winnipeg Jets, IMO they'll update or rebrand themselves within the next 30 years. I honestly don't see that logo sticking around for a long time.

Two things, I think, keep the logo around. The RCAF connection and the fact that the owners seem to want to emphasize that they aren't the same team as the original Jets. They made a huge deal about the RCAF connection when they unveiled the uniforms, and made mention of donations made to the military in exchange for being able to use the air force's roundel as part of their logo. If the RCAF changes their roundel, I could the team following, but other then that I don't see them changing. Remember, this is the ownership group that once decked their AHL team out in RCAF Flyers uniforms.

The only logos that I could see being considered would be the last two logos of the original Jets. Those logos seem to be beloved by Winnipeg's fans. Again though, I don't see the owners changing because they've stated time and again they aren't the same team as the original Jets. They'll cash in on throwback nights, for sure, but I don't see them going with either of the old logos any time soon.

I don't think you can call that Blue Jays look a modern-classic considering they only switched to that logo and look because it was such a classic look everyone adores from the late 70's, 80's and early 90's.

Of course they just switched to it. That's as contemporary as you can get

And it's not the same look that they used from the 70s-90s. They updated it. Again, if the Lions' update is fair game, I think this is too.

The Nets I'm on the fence about. I could completely see the team sticking with the look colors and logo forever, while another part of me sees the team trying a bunch of different looks throughout the coming years specifically for selling jerseys and marketing purposes.

My basis for listing them is the fact that Jay-Z said he wanted something classic looking, something that could stick around for a while. Who knows if that will actually ring true through the years (especially considering Jay-Z's lack of actual power re: the team) but the intent to create a contemporary classic is there.

I'm iffy about the Philadelphia Union. I absolutely hate their colors, but I think the logo itself is very good. It will probably stick around for a long time because soccer clubs pretty much NEVER change their colors or logos.

I love the Union's colours. They have a very strong American Revolution theme. The name Union, the team's location in the Revolutionary capital of the United States, the theme's very apparent. Problem is the New England Revolution already cornered the obvious symbolism associated with that theme, ie the American flag and the red, white, and blue colour scheme. So they counter that with the Don't Tread On Me snake (a popular symbol in Revolutionary America) and the buff and blue colour scheme, which is reflective of the uniforms worn by the Continental Army. It's a fantastic design for a team that wanted an American Revolution-inspired name and identity while not stepping on the toes of the team actually named the Revolution.

Speaking of the MLS there's one logo I absolutely adore and believe will never be changed...

Very original design about it, plus it has everything you could ask for when creating an identity for a Canadian soccer team from Toronto.

The Toronto FC logo has, in my opinion, gone from "contemporary classic" to "it could stand to be tweaked" in relatively short order. The soccer ball maple leaf was clever and fitting in 2007 when they were the only Canadian team in the league. I don't think one could say with absolute certainty that Montreal and Vancouver would get MLS teams back in 2007, so the leaf worked in representing the team as "Canada's" MLS team.

Now, though, we have teams in Montreal and Vancouver. Not only that, but MLS insists on each team wearing the flag of the country they're based out of on the sleeve. So Toronto FC's already wearing a maple leaf. The factors that made the leaf a logical design element in 2007 are gone now, and I think it's time the crest was changed to reflect that.

This wouldn't be a bad update, in my opinion.

[Glover]

[Lights Out]

[McCall]

This is "Contemporary Classics", not "My personal favorite jerseys/logos". Out of the ones you posted, only the Chargers and Astros MAY come close to this. Of course, those Astros jerseys haven't been worn for 12 years so I don't think you could include them. Plus they only lasted 7 seasons. And the Chargers are close, but there are some issues that they should've fixed before they unveiled that entire set.

But the Vikings, Jazz and those one-off Diamondbacks gimmicks are far from "classics".

[guest23]

I don't have a photo but the season after the bib disaster byu (the all navy with the side stripe) had the best modern football uniform that I can recall

[Lights Out]

But the Vikings, Jazz and those one-off Diamondbacks gimmicks are far from "classics".

Disagree. They're unique, modern, yet still fit perfectly in the team's identity and will always look good (other than whenever the Vikings go monochrome), ergo, they're classics.

[McCall]

But the Vikings, Jazz and those one-off Diamondbacks gimmicks are far from "classics".

Disagree. They're unique, modern, yet still fit perfectly in the team's identity and will always look good (other than whenever the Vikings go monochrome), ergo, they're classics.

Your kidding, right? They do none of those things, except maybe fit, technically, into the team's identities. And that's debatable. Even if they do, that doesn't make them classics. To be classics, they also need to look good, like really good, and those 3, more often than not, fall short of looking even somewhat decent. Sure there will be those that find them interesting or quirky, but that does not qualify as a "classic". The D-Backs TATC jersey will never be a regularly worn jersey, so how can it be classic? Yes everything here in this thread is based on personal opinion, but within a certain reason and context of what the subject is. You just posted jerseys you like without really thinking about the concept of the thread.

[tBBP]

^ Like you didn't see that coming, Matt.

Anyway, to get all bookworm with it, and also considering the context of the thread topic, Merriam-Webster defines "classic", as an adjective (which in this case it would be, since adjectives describe things-things in this case being logos/uniforms), as:

1. of the first or highest quality, class, or rank

2. serving as a standard, model, or guide

Now to be sure, any and everything can fit into this definition in one's mind (i.e. an opinion), but....

...Oh hell?I'll let y'all debate this s*** from here.

[vicfurth]

I believe the criteria was something that is unlikely to be considered for change, Lights Out.

The Astros, Diamondbacks, and Jazz have ALREADY changed from your photos and the Vikings are being considered for change already. Given the original criteria, your post is false

[Discrim]

Nebraska similarities aside, it's just about the only college one I could think of...every other college classic I can think of has been around much longer, and I'd get way too much if I posted Notre Dame, facts be damned.

Honorable mentions due to no longer being worn:

Hawaii

Argonauts

Avalanche

[Discrim]

And I figure if I don't throw in the footy, no one will...so Aussie rules' contemporary classics as brought to you by a damn parrot

Port Adelaide...their logo is ass, but their jumpers are class.

come to think of it, Adelaide

Freo Dockers

Sydney Swans

Far as emblems rather than jerseys/jumpers, Geelong could have (and has) done much worse than this

[Mingjai]

The only MLS logo that I felt fit. This thing is just gorgeous, and I love that the DTOM rattlesnake is getting use somewhere.

I'm admittedly biased, but if we're judging based on the logo alone, the RSL logo is quite nice as well (though I prefer the original, non-gradient version):

[ARTnSocal]

The Wild's original set was near perfect, another example of a new team that got it right on the first try. Unlike the Texans, however, they've messed it up. None of their sweaters look bad, but their inability to commit to a design, and the marginalization of their fantastic primary, hurt their overall look.

For years I said the Blue Jays just needed to go back to their World Series-era set. When I heard they were going to "update" that look I was worried, because the 1997 update was, in my opinion, inferior to what came before. I was pleasantly surprised though. The new Blue Jays look is simply fantastic. One of the best in baseball.

Couldn't disagree more regarding the Minnesota Wild ... Dunno how anyone could view a green-red color combo as 'near-perfect' ... The logo is fine, but the red & green color combo is hideous and just doesn't work (except for Christmas). NJ had the good sense to drop the green for black and have a winner. For the Wild, their alternate color combo of pine green and that khaki-like color looks much better.

As far as the Jays are concerned, I fully agree with you (that's an all-time first 'eh?) ... They look like the Jays again, and I'm glad they went with the solid blue caps rather than the originals with the white crown in front (like Baltimore's home cap)

I sooooo remember those .. damn they were sharp !!

[Legend]

I actually burst out laughing when I saw the D-Backs TATC uniforms. You can't be serious. I think they're really cool and like alot of "out there" ideas and jerseys and personally enjoy seeing them. But cannot call them classics, not ever close. That's hilarious. It's like me posting all the weird thirds I own and saying they are contemporary classics because I like them. Hilarity.

IceCap put the first one that came to mind for me. The Devils is semi-modern, and in the world of hockey where classic goes back a long time, I think the Devils logo has entered the realm of untouchable and classic and still contemporary. Since, as you guys said, it wasn't from when hockey "classics" were around back in the day with Bruins and Habs.

Here is another newer (guess I'd say 80's and up, trying to stick to mid 90's and up), and is classic. With most classic logos being from the beginning of the league or a team, something from the 80's and 90's can surely be considered contemporary.

I've debated this over time, as I see the logo more, I feel like they got this logo right the first time and it should last a long time. All the elements with the flag and skull and swords is really well done and I can't see anything coming along that would make me think otherwise. It has modern elements with an classic feel after now being around for over a decade.

As I'm looking, I guess there aren't much more. I also agree with the Texans. Since the Cardinals could be changed again as well as the Lions, as time goes on, not sure if I would classify it here.

So really seems like the Texans, Bucs, and Devils are the only ones in the 3 major sports I follow I consider.

[The_Admiral]

GET OUT. The toilet-flush is not a classic, and the only reason it will never change is because management is sclerotic, lazy, and generally clueless.

[Eye]

GET OUT. The toilet-flush is not a classic, and the only reason it will never change is because management is sclerotic, lazy, and generally clueless.

Yet, that logo is on a Stanley Cup Champion banner. If this was the other thread, perhaps someone would say it is classic for that very reason. Ugh.

For what it's worth, the question of whether or not someone is a true hockey fan is if they can name five players on that forgettable team that won 6 years ago. I don't look it up because I don't want to know the answer, but I know people who extensively follow the game that struggle to come up with 5.