Contemporary Classics?

[zpqmaowl]

Justin Williams, Cam Ward, Rod Brind'Amour, Eric Staal, Radim Vrbata.

[charger77]

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.

Cam Ward, Rod Brind'Amour, Glen Wesley, Eric Staal, Martin Gerber, Ray Whitney, Erik Cole, Matt Cullen, Corey Stillman, Doug Weight, Mark Recchi, Frantesek Kaberle, Brett Hedican, Andrew Ladd, etc...

[Glover]

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.

I'm not big on the logo either, and I'm a Hurricanes fan. But I had this logo in mind as one that wouldn't be changed for a while and could be here to stay. I think it will stay because it is a logo that really doesn't need any major fixing, it is recognizable/doesn't conflict with other pro teams or universities, it is all over the Raleigh area (or at least it was every time I was there), the fans don't seem to be asking for a new look, and yes, the team has had success with it. Adding all that up, I don't see a change for the Hurricanes in the near future, and if the logo lasts another decade or so, it might reach the "untouchable" level to the fan base, and maybe these boards.

[Glover]

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.

I know some have already proven the point...but I'm pretty sure a true hockey fan knows Brindy, Cole, Staal, Cam Ward, and Ray Whitney at the very least.

[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.

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.

Eric Staal

Rod Twig of Love

Cam Ward

Cory Stillman

i'm out

And when you're citing Cory Stillman as a memorable player, that's as good a time as any to give up.

EDIT: I didn't realize Ray Whitney, Doug Weight, and Bret Hedican were on that team. And Mark Recchi. Wow, that team was a real who's who of second-liners from 1996. I'm so glad this happened.

[BBTV]

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.

The Devils logo and uniforms are absolutely classic. They've stood the test of time (albeit in different color combinations) and look just as fresh today as they did 15 years ago as they will 15 years from now. Not sure I'd consider it "contemporary" though - just "classic".

As for Tampa Bay Bucs, I would argue that the logo is the weakest part of their current set, however I would consider their current uniform (with pewter pants, not white) to be a "classic". HOWEVUH, I don't consider it "contemporary" classic, since it's really a very traditional type of classic. Symmetrical stripes, block numbers, etc. There are some contemporary touches like the wordmark under the collar and the abundance of outlines and use of black, but at its soul, it's a very traditional set.

I would have to nominate the Eagles in the NFL. They've had the same logo for 17 years now, and it's still in the style that other logos are being designed in (and ripped off a lot!) The Broncos would also be considered in this category, but it was a year later. Still, the two logos really inspired a new style of major-league sports logos (going from more detailed full-body "literal" logos to more aggressive, cut-off, easily reproducible, less detailed logos.)

Their uniform, since the 2003 update, has been unchanged, and would really fit in 30 years ago as well as 30 years from now, despite having contemporary touches such as the wordmark, custom font, asymmetrical pants stripes, and non-traditional color.

Anyone can argue that they don't like the fonts, or the color, but maters of personal taste aside, objectively speaking I feel it's the definition of a "contemporary classic", in that it combines contemporary elements in a very traditional way (logo on sleeve, straight stripes, no wild piping, traditional helmet, etc.)

[Dbroalexander]

Justin Williams, Cam Ward, Rod Brind'Amour, Eric Staal, Radim Vrbata.

Vrbata was traded to Chicago during that season.

[The_Admiral]

I agree that the Eagles are a contemporary classic. I also think that the Eagles belong in a classic classic with a normal shade of green and normal names/numbers, but I give them credit for sticking with what they have.

Devils have a good thing going, too. Never been a fan of the pewter Bucs; they just look like a 49ers ripoff. I think it's safe to go back to the creamsicle now.

[Mingjai]

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.

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.

Since this is a design forum, I think it should be pointed out that red and green are classically considered to be complementary colors. Just because you associated red and green with Christmas doesn't mean it doesn't work as a color combination in the pure aesthetic sense.

[The_Admiral]

You could put a color wheel on the masthead of the forum and you'd still get a hundred "too Christmas!" and "lol did somebody say McDonald's?" posts a year.

[Ark]

As for a real contemporary classic,

Perfect modernization of the classic crown IMO.

[Raysfan12]

I know you all talk about pro teams, but I'll throw in two college football schools.

Oklahoma State Cowboys:

Kentucky Wildcats: (Except the black)

[BBTV]

I like the OK State uniforms, and kinda like the UK ones, but no universe exists in which either one would qualify as a contemporary classic. Neither one could possibly exist 20 years from now, and neither could have fit in 20 years ago. They'll be modified or scrapped within 3 seasons.

[kevinmets]

[OnWis97]

On 8/19/2012 at 10:19 AM, Ice_Cap said:

 

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.

 

I could not agree more.

This was on the road to "modern classic" IMO. I know some people don't like the colors, and a few don't like the logo, but I happen to love both. Then, as you say, they started messing with everything; trying to hard. Now they have three jerseys that look nothing alike, they are (your word is perfect and I use it a lot in regards to this) marginalizing the great logo by sticking it into a circle, and just following lame trends (i.e., with their third).

They don't need to go back to the exact original set, but get that logo front-and-center again and they'll be securley on that road to "modern classic". They are definitely skidding toward the shoulder right now.

[Korkie]

My cut-off was 1990.

- The road jersey sleeve patch issue aside, the Sox finally found an identity that shouldn't be touched.

- The whole package works for a team name in which there isn't much you can do with.

The logo itself is brilliant, imo.

Of those already said, I agree with the Eagles, Bucs, Mariners, and Blue Jays.

[Sport]

First thought was the Toronto Blue Jays. They are wearing exactly what they should be wearing until baseball doesn't exist anymore. They're perfect.

Also the Oakland A's, and Seattle Mariners are dressed in contemporary classics that look just as good now as they did when they debuted, and they'll look good 20 years from now.

In other sports I'd have to say the Winnipeg Jets, Columbus Blue Jackets, New Jersey Devils, Philadelphia Eagles, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Houston Texans come to mind.

[McCall]

3/4 agreed. Mariners and Angels are great and the Rays vastly underrated. But the Brewers have one of the blandest, most uninspiring sets in baseball. They are nowhere close to being close to being considered "classic".

[BBTV]

3/4 agreed. Mariners and Angels are great and the Rays vastly underrated. But the Brewers have one of the blandest, most uninspiring sets in baseball. They are nowhere close to being close to being considered "classic".

I'm not sure how you can make that comment when the two logos are side by side like that. On the left, you have a stylized navy wordmark, with gold trim, an element of the sport (a baseball), and wheat thingies to tie in to their nickname. On the right, you have a navy wordmark (debatable how stylized it is, I tend to look at it as MS Word word-art), an element of the sport (diamond), a "glint" in a seemingly random place, and light blue trim, with a lot of white space.

You can make the argument that the Brewers uniforms are bland and uninspired (I wouldn't agree on the latter, and only on the former due to the colors), but you can't make that statement in the same breath as praising the Rays set, especially when you have them right next to each other.

[McCall]

3/4 agreed. Mariners and Angels are great and the Rays vastly underrated. But the Brewers have one of the blandest, most uninspiring sets in baseball. They are nowhere close to being close to being considered "classic".

I'm not sure how you can make that comment when the two logos are side by side like that. On the left, you have a stylized navy wordmark, with gold trim, an element of the sport (a baseball), and wheat thingies to tie in to their nickname. On the right, you have a navy wordmark (debatable how stylized it is, I tend to look at it as MS Word word-art), an element of the sport (diamond), a "glint" in a seemingly random place, and light blue trim, with a lot of white space.

You can make the argument that the Brewers uniforms are bland and uninspired (I wouldn't agree on the latter, and only on the former due to the colors), but you can't make that statement in the same breath as praising the Rays set, especially when you have them right next to each other.

I was referring to their entire sets, and really I just said the Rays were underrated. The Brewers may have a logo that looks ok, but the uniforms are terrible. Overly outlined scripts with "MS Word" numbers. The Rays at least look like simple baseball uniforms. The Brewers look like a beer league team (appropriate and the only league they'd be considered classic).

THAT'S how I make the comment.