Contemporary Classics?

[kajeet]

[BBTV]

Just because a logo / uniform was designed recently doesn't make it contemporary.

[McCall]

Just because a logo / uniform was designed recently doesn't make it contemporary.

So you decide what is and is not contemporary?

[Eye]

Just because a logo / uniform was designed recently doesn't make it contemporary.

So you decide what is and is not contemporary?

Everyone decides what is and is not contemporary.

[29texan]

I want to. I really, REALLY want to, especially since this logo more recently is associated with the renaissance of the Franchione/Patterson eras. But I know this wont be around forever since, for those of you who don't know, there are already two new concepts for the Frog out there. They are currently shelved, for now...

[BBTV]

Just because a logo / uniform was designed recently doesn't make it contemporary.

So you decide what is and is not contemporary?

By definition, I cannot decide what is contemporary.

Something can be designed today in a traditional style, in a retro style, in a contemporary style, or in a "futuristic" (or TATC) style.

[Ark]

I agree. I LOVE this logo.

[IceCap]

Just because a logo / uniform was designed recently doesn't make it contemporary.

The only criteria when deciding what's "contemporary", for me at any rate, is when it's designed. Therefore I'd consider the Bucs' uniforms to count. Traditionally styled? Maybe. They're relatively new though, so they count as a contemporary design.

[Ark]

Edit: delete

[McCall]

Just because a logo / uniform was designed recently doesn't make it contemporary.

The only criteria when deciding what's "contemporary", for me at any rate, is when it's designed. Therefore I'd consider the Bucs' uniforms to count. Traditionally styled? Maybe. They're relatively new though, so they count as a contemporary design.

I think in this case, "contemporary" simply means new, not in design-style, but in terms of time of use.

con·tem·po·rar·y   /kənˈtɛmpəˌrɛri/ Show Spelled [kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural con·tem·po·rar·ies.

adjective

1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.

2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.

3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

So basically, anything designed recently (I've read it usually means within the last 80 years, but I don't think that applies to sports uniforms/logos.) I'd say 20-25 years is a good timeframe. Maybe back to 1990 or so. Or back to the 80's, I guess, if it remains unchanged.

[BBTV]

Just because a logo / uniform was designed recently doesn't make it contemporary.

The only criteria when deciding what's "contemporary", for me at any rate, is when it's designed. Therefore I'd consider the Bucs' uniforms to count. Traditionally styled? Maybe. They're relatively new though, so they count as a contemporary design.

I dunno. This chair could have been designed last year, but I would hardly call it "contemporary" (from a design perspective.)

I would imagine the point of this discussion is to discuss contemporary designs which have or could become classics.

It's no fun if a team just adopts an old classic look and we talk about it here, because there's no real discussion to be had.

I think that in light of the recent discussions about the RBK Edge redesigns and some of the wild Nike and UA designs, we've seen that very few designs that use modern design elements can be considered classic - more just like passing fads. It really can be a challenge to incorporate modern concepts into a design that is more or less timeless. I think that's a far more interesting discussion to have.

As for the Bucs, as I've posted before, I'm torn on them. It's a very traditional uniform, and the only real "contemporary" elements are the non-traditional color scheme, the abundance of black as trim, the collar wordmark, and the outlines. Personally, I lean toward grouping them in the "traditional" or "classic" crowd as opposed to "contemporary", but it could go either way. If you want to call them contemporary then I'll go with that.

[McCall]

Contemporary classics = current (as in currently being used regardless of era the design appears to be from) designs that could very well become classics.

You're reading too much into the word "contemporary". The OP just probably used it instead of the word "current" without thinking too much about it.

[Trevell]

[Silent Wind of Doom]

Why does it seem that every thread I'm looking at lately on this forum sees conversation quickly decending into calling people out, hurling insults, and general uncivility?

Anyway, here's my picks. My criteria was picking logos made in the last 20 years and not taking essentially returned versions of old logos.

Seattle Mariners - 1993

Even if the primary may grow stale, and be updated, I don't think they'd change what I think is a lovely cap logo. Beautiful colors, iconography that fits the team and city's identity, a level of detail that keeps it from becoming plain and boring while not being overly complex and still easily drawable.

Oakland Athletics - 1993

An update to a plain and outdated looking logo. The older version was sparse and white, but this more color-dominant version looks beautiful and completely encapsulates the team's permanent identity (which, given, is just a Gothic A and green and gold). I don't see any change ever being made except to perhaps the name of the city the team resides in.

Texas Rangers - 2000

I have never liked the Ranger's current primary logo. Always seemed a bit to kiddie and amateurish, like a minor-league team. Their cap logo, though, is strong and unique. The small additions to the letter T make it unique to the Texas Rangers, yet it's simplistic and iconic. A big step up from the previous versions which were all a rather plain block T. They should never change it.

Washington Capitals - 2007

Yes, this is technically a rehash of a classic design, but comparing the two together, this one is really very different. This has a classic retro feel to it, much moreso than the actual classic logo it's based off of, which looks very amateurish and plain. This updated version is sharp and beautiful, plus the addition of the stars from the Washington flag is a good job of some added local reference.

Toronto F.C. - 2007

Simple, yet elegant and timeless. The soccer ball maple leaf is clever. The logo does play up the Canadianness, but they're Canadian. Not being the only Canadian team doesn't mean they need to downplay the Canadian angle.

Los Angeles Galaxy - 2007

Simple without being boring. Modern, but not faddy. No elements that I see becoming stale.

Tampa Bay Rays - 2008

People knock the redo of their uniforms, but even if they make further changes to their identity and logo, I hope they keep this cap logo. It's unique and simple enough that it's not going to grow old. It also has fond memories attributed to it for the team.

Golden State Warriors - 2010

Much like most of my picks, this logo is simple, but not boring. It's timeless and has a classic but modern look.

Brooklyn Nets - 2012

I covered in the Nets thread how I feel this logo and identity are genius.

[karta]

The New Zealand Warriors in Australia's NRL have a timeless classic imo. Rugby League is popular with the Maori people in NZ so the logo and name have strong ties to that.

[ohryan]

I'll admit that I'm not much of a soccer fan, and I absolutely HATED the name change from "Kansas City Wizards" to "Sporting Kansas City," but the new identity that was created for this team has been noting short of amazing. You would never see anybody wearing Wizards gear and the franchise was an afterthought on the local news and game recaps were burried several pages in to the local newspaper. Now, granted, the identity change came along with a new state-of-the-art soccer-specific stadium, but this logo is EVERYWHERE around town now. Soccer fans in KC have been coming out of the woodwork and every Sporting game is front page news. People have embraced this franchise like nothing I've ever seen before.

From a design standpoint, I think this logo is nearly perfect. I don't know that the "SC" portion is strong enough to stand on it's own, and I'm still not in love with the name, but the rest of the logo is fantastic.

For those that aren't real familiar with Kansas City, the metro area is split in half by the Missouri-Kansas state line. There are actually two Kansas City's: Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas, with the Missouri one being the larger of the two and the Kansas one considered more of a suburb. Nearly every other professional team calls (or did call) Kansas City, Missouri home (Royals, Chiefs, Kings, Scouts). Sporting is the lone exception since they play in Kansas. Most local residents harbor strong feelings for their state and feel that their side of the state line is much better than the other. The lines on the left side of the logo mimic the state line and create harmony in a touchy subject for many people.

I don't see this logo going away anytime soon.

[2liveted]

.

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.

your rational for the cardinals doesn't make sense considering the lions modern update is on your list.