Teams that never had a bad look

[IceCap]

Well, the powder blue would have looked nice, considering it would have preceded the Titans, Grizzies and Jazz ushering in the boring double-blue fad in the 2000's.

BTW, I still maintain that serif numbers would look awesome for the Wings IF the font were bolder and closer to the Bookman font from their wordmark. Traditional serif fonts are underused in sports, which is a shame, because UVA and UCLA showed how good they could look in the '90s.

Well yeah, they would have gotten a jump on that trend, but the uniforms as they were described (again, I think by CWx, but I'm not sure) sounded like typical late 90s fair. They probably would have reverted back to traditional blue and white before the double blue trend ever got started.

The double blue wouldn't have been that bad (there's a bit of a civic tradition to it, with the Argos and Jays) but the graffiti text sounds horrid. The double blue would have worked if the Leafs were an 80s/90s expansion team, but not for the second most storied franchise in league history.

[Lights Out]

The Wings' serif numbers were good in theory, bad in practice. If you're unifying the script and the numbers, then you probably have to do the NOBs, too, and obviously Bookman Swash doesn't lend itself to that. Best off just using block for names and numbers, then.

Bookman also comes in a non-swash variety, which looks pretty good as a NOB font. I actually explored this idea in my NHL concept series a few months ago.

****SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT****

[IceCap]

BTW, I still maintain that the Leafs have only had one truly great look:

I know Ice_Cap isn't a fan of the custom fonts, but IMHO, the fonts are what elevates this sweater from looking like a cheap replica to an actual professional uniform.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with a different opinion, and I honestly do like it when you have something to say about a hockey identity, because you're an outsider, so you have a fresher perspective then those of us who have followed the sport all our lives.

That being said, the only great look the team's had? I don't buy that. Even if I'm being as objective as possible (they are my favourite sports team after all) I think the current look is pretty "great" as well. Not to mention the uniforms worn by the dynasties in the 40s and 60s.

I can certainly see the appeal behind the custom numbers and name on back fonts from a design perspective. And those uniforms do hold a special place in my heart because they represent the last truly great era of Leafs hockey to me, but still, I can't really sign off on those fonts. The Leafs are one of the founding NHL teams, older then every other team in the league save for the Montreal Canadiens. I know "tradition" is lost on you (and I don't mean that as an insult), but it's a very big part of what the Leafs are. Block letting and number fonts just sort of fit, you know?

[Morgan33]

BTW, I still maintain that the Leafs have only had one truly great look:

I know Ice_Cap isn't a fan of the custom fonts, but IMHO, the fonts are what elevates this sweater from looking like a cheap replica to an actual professional uniform.

Really? The font and the jersey cut are the only differences between this and what they currently wear. Don't get me wrong, the custom font is nice... but so are the bloc numbers. I guess I don't see why it would be the difference between a great jersey and non-great one.

[Lights Out]

Well, I did kind of exaggerate there. As much as I dislike the Edge template, I did like the prototype Leafs Edge sweaters that were leaked to CBC.

Modern, but still very traditional and classy. The bland uniform that the Leafs ended up using in the Edge 1.0 era was really disappointing by comparison.

[Morgan33]

I am sorry but that prototype jersey makes the Leafs Edge 1.0 threads look masterful by comparision. No original six team should ever use side panels in place of hem stripes. Also, I'm not sure the logo is big enough...

[Lights Out]

Really? The font and the jersey cut are the only differences between this and what they currently wear. Don't get me wrong, the custom font is nice... but so are the bloc numbers. I guess I don't see why it would be the difference between a great jersey and non-great one.

Much like in other forms of design, I feel typography can really make or break a uniform. A custom font can really elevate or at least put the finishing touches on a uniform if done properly.

For instance, the Bears briefly tried plain block numbers on their road uniform, and they just didn't look like the Bears. Their custom font was already perfect for them, and switching to plain block downgraded their uniform instead of enhancing it.

Likewise, UCLA football had an amazing classic look back in the late '90s and early 2000s when they used a custom serif number font (which the baseball team and even the basketball team have since used). But when they switched back to boring block numbers, the uniforms lost their visual interest and became bland.

[IceCap]

Really? The font and the jersey cut are the only differences between this and what they currently wear. Don't get me wrong, the custom font is nice... but so are the bloc numbers. I guess I don't see why it would be the difference between a great jersey and non-great one.

Much like in other forms of design, I feel typography can really make or break a uniform. A custom font can really elevate or at least put the finishing touches on a uniform if done properly.

For instance, the Bears briefly tried plain block numbers on their road uniform, and they just didn't look like the Bears. Their custom font was already perfect for them, and switching to plain block downgraded their uniform instead of enhancing it.

That example could work the other way though.

The Leafs had worn block numbers from 1917 to 1997. For all intents and purposes block was the font that they were best known for. The Bears, as you said, just didn't look like the Bears when they dropped the font they were best known for, and it just didn't look right. Same with the Leafs. When they dropped the block in 1997 they just didn't look like the Leafs.

[Kevin W.]

Wasn't UCLA's "custom" number font just Clarendon?

[chriscj83]

Wasn't UCLA's "custom" number font just Clarendon?

I don't know if it's quite Clarendon, but it's very close. The top of the "2" is a little thinner than it would be in Clarendon Roman, and the bottom of the same number is too fat for Clarendon Light.

Unless my font here at work is incorrect, which is a very good possibility.

[John in KY]

Really? The font and the jersey cut are the only differences between this and what they currently wear. Don't get me wrong, the custom font is nice... but so are the bloc numbers. I guess I don't see why it would be the difference between a great jersey and non-great one.

Much like in other forms of design, I feel typography can really make or break a uniform. A custom font can really elevate or at least put the finishing touches on a uniform if done properly.

For instance, the Bears briefly tried plain block numbers on their road uniform, and they just didn't look like the Bears. Their custom font was already perfect for them, and switching to plain block downgraded their uniform instead of enhancing it.

I think the Bears change to the block numbers might have been a function of the jerseys of that time period - I believe the white ones with block numbers were summer weight mesh jerseys with screened-on numbers. They also at this same time had summer weight home mesh jerseys that had sewn-on numbers in their custom font but no sleeve stripes. However, later in the season when the weather got cold they would bring back the durene jerseys with full stripes and the custom numbers.

[hailstateunis]

]

Likewise, UCLA football had an amazing classic look back in the late '90s and early 2000s when they used a custom serif number font (which the baseball team and even the basketball team have since used). But when they switched back to boring block numbers, the uniforms lost their visual interest and became bland.

The bottom one is miles better, IMO.

[Bravo96]

Because I'm a homer? Charlotte Hornets. Beautiful. The Braves. The powder-blue era wasn't gorgeous, but certainly not atrocious either. UNC basketball. For that matter, football, too. And the Carolina Panthers. /End homerism.

Atlanta Falcons, San Diego Chargers, and the Oakland A's. (Black alts not included).

[CSSdesigns]

Los Angeles Angles.

[bulldogbarks55]

Toronto Maple Leafs

I was going to mention the Leafs until I remembered their first Edge set. The lack of hem stripes and the overdone number outlines really do push that set into "bad" territory, in my opinion.

The Ballard uniforms were pretty bad, too.

Agree. Pal Hal screwed up more than the team on the ice. The crest, the uniforms. Everything he touched turned out badly.

[Sport]

]

Likewise, UCLA football had an amazing classic look back in the late '90s and early 2000s when they used a custom serif number font (which the baseball team and even the basketball team have since used). But when they switched back to boring block numbers, the uniforms lost their visual interest and became bland.

The bottom one is miles better, IMO.

Objectively speaking, how is the bottom one miles better because I don't see it, even with the dumb UCLA blue facemask experiment. The top one uses a more interesting number font, UCLA stripes that are actual stripes that make their way around the shoulder and not just short lines of color, the pants are metallic shiny and therefore match the helmet, and TV numbers. HOW is the bottom one "miles better"?

Note: both uniforms are Adidas.

[Lights Out]

I really liked the blue facemasks for UCLA actually. Gray facemasks almost never look good, but they especially look horrid on gold helmets.

[BadSeed84]

I'd just get rid of the drop shadow on the above uniforms, and it would look great today imo.

[OnWis97]

On 9/19/2012 at 9:38 AM, McCarthy said:

On 9/19/2012 at 7:08 PM, pscf3 said:

On 9/18/2012 at 1:18 PM, Lights Out said:

]

Likewise, UCLA football had an amazing classic look back in the late '90s and early 2000s when they used a custom serif number font (which the baseball team and even the basketball team have since used). But when they switched back to boring block numbers, the uniforms lost their visual interest and became bland.

 

 

 

The bottom one is miles better, IMO.

 

Objectively speaking, how is the bottom one miles better because I don't see it, even with the dumb UCLA blue facemask experiment. The top one uses a more interesting number font, UCLA stripes that are actual stripes that make their way around the shoulder and not just short lines of color, the pants are metallic shiny and therefore match the helmet, and TV numbers. HOW is the bottom one "miles better"?

Note: both uniforms are Adidas.

 

In a vacuum, I'd have to agree that the above > the below, but NOT because of the stylized numbers; because the tight fit, which damaged most teams, was particularly unkind to UCLA, particularly the "stripes". But the UCLA block numbers with actually stripes was a thing of beauty...maybe my favorite college football jersey ever:

 

[OnWis97]

Please note that at roughly this moment, the below uniform was released and anyone that mentioned the Spurs prior to this post should be off the hook: