Recommended Posts

Between the two, I much prefer the Reds jerseys with the white outline. In considering my opinion, note that I also think the white outlines look good on the Yankees road jerseys. *DUCKS*

The key difference between the Reds jerseys and the Phillies jerseys, which I really dislike, is the size of the white outline. The outline on the Reds jerseys is very thin relative to the size of the script. On the other hand, the outline on the Phillies jerseys is so big that it overwhelms the script.

Bottom line -- I can't think of an example where I like the white outline as a second outline (as in the Tigers road jerseys, Orioles old road and alt jerseys). Where the white is the only outline, it can look good if it is done right (Reds, White Sox).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dgstylematch1.JPG

Not to hijack this thread (which is what everybody says right before they hijack a thread), but I think the radial arch (picture one) looks a milion times better than the vertical arch (the others). Back in the 70's, when vertical arches started replacing radial arches it seemed new and modern, but now it just looks disco cheap IMO.

(On topic, count me as a supporter of the classic Reds look sans-outline)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to hijack this thread (which is what everybody says right before they hijack a thread), but I think the radial arch (picture one) looks a milion times better than the vertical arch (the others). Back in the 70's, when vertical arches started replacing radial arches it seemed new and modern, but now it just looks disco cheap IMO.

Really? I feel the exact opposite. To me, vertical arches suggest that someone took the time to align and shape each letter properly based on its place in the word (though that obviously isn't really the case), while radial arches suggest that someone just pulled each of the letters out of a big box (also not actually the case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to hijack this thread (which is what everybody says right before they hijack a thread), but I think the radial arch (picture one) looks a milion times better than the vertical arch (the others). Back in the 70's, when vertical arches started replacing radial arches it seemed new and modern, but now it just looks disco cheap IMO.

Really? I feel the exact opposite. To me, vertical arches suggest that someone took the time to align and shape each letter properly based on its place in the word (though that obviously isn't really the case), while radial arches suggest that someone just pulled each of the letters out of a big box (also not actually the case).

Oh, sure, I think it's obvious that vertical arches, at least in most cases, take more time and/or effort, but that doesn't necessarily mean they look better... at least to me. It's funny... I just got done discussing this concept with an Art Appreciation class this morning. When we get to 20th century Art History the topic of degree of difficulty always comes up. Some students just can't accept any modern art that seems simple... the basic criticism is, "Hell, I could've done that!” (side note... no, they couldn't) which somehow disqualifies the object as art. Basically, they're saying the harder it was to make, the better it is, as though sweat equals aesthetics.

That same concept could apply to the white outlines... yes, they take more time, more money, more effort. So what? Do they look better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to hijack this thread (which is what everybody says right before they hijack a thread), but I think the radial arch (picture one) looks a milion times better than the vertical arch (the others). Back in the 70's, when vertical arches started replacing radial arches it seemed new and modern, but now it just looks disco cheap IMO.

Really? I feel the exact opposite. To me, vertical arches suggest that someone took the time to align and shape each letter properly based on its place in the word (though that obviously isn't really the case), while radial arches suggest that someone just pulled each of the letters out of a big box (also not actually the case).

Oh, sure, I think it's obvious that vertical arches, at least in most cases, take more time and/or effort, but that doesn't necessarily mean they look better... at least to me. It's funny... I just got done discussing this concept with an Art Appreciation class this morning. When we get to 20th century Art History the topic of degree of difficulty always comes up. Some students just can't accept any modern art that seems simple... the basic criticism is, "Hell, I could've done that!” (side note... no, they couldn't) which somehow disqualifies the object as art. Basically, they're saying the harder it was to make, the better it is, as though sweat equals aesthetics.

That same concept could apply to the white outlines... yes, they take more time, more money, more effort. So what? Do they look better?

Yes, the radial arch looks better. The perceived "degree of difficulty" is only part of it. It just looks more polished to me.

P.S. Are you trying to kill my 45 year old eyes? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a consistent position for or against the white outlines. It depends on the circumstances.

I'd say that the white outilne around "Cincinnati" looks bad because the letters are already thin to accomodate the long name. So, rather than making the letters pop, the outline actually makes those thin letters shrink. Whereas, on the Yankee jersey the letters in "New York" are the right size to benefit from the white outline; so these bold letters stand out even further when outlined by white.

In the Phillies' case, the problem is that the white outline is too huge; it doesn't hug the word the way the white outline around the Dodgers' wordmark did.

Regarding vertical arch on players' names: it seems "professional" only in the technological sense. Artistically, it's a mess. A given letter has a different shape depending on where it falls in a guy's name and on how long the name is. To have each letter of the alphabet represented in a variety of shapes is chaotic, and so is unbecoming of a professional team.

(But vertical arch on the team's name is just fine, because every player wears the same mark.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the outline camp, just one though, not the double non-sense that the Tigs roadies have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding vertical arch on players' names: it seems "professional" only in the technological sense. Artistically, it's a mess. A given letter has a different shape depending on where it falls in a guy's name and on how long the name is. To have each letter of the alphabet represented in a variety of shapes is chaotic, and so is unbecoming of a professional team.

I know the letters all vary, but it still looks sharp to me (for lack of a better word). I always loved the Braves and Orioles NOBs when they used the single color radial arch.

tumblr_m4hm5xs23V1qm9rypo1_1280.jpg

^^^ One of my favorite pictures, even though I wasn't alive in 1966.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding vertical arch on players' names: it seems "professional" only in the technological sense. Artistically, it's a mess. A given letter has a different shape depending on where it falls in a guy's name and on how long the name is. To have each letter of the alphabet represented in a variety of shapes is chaotic, and so is unbecoming of a professional team.

Henrik+Zetterberg+Detroit+Red+Wings+v+Chicago+qjjde2Y6344x.jpg

This looks terrific. You're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, when I brought up the whole vertical arch stuff, I was specifically thinking of team names and wordmarks, not NOB. The Redwings' NOB is nice and I can't really picture them any other way. The problem with a radial arch on the NOB is you need to use smaller letters or you end up with this mess...

pMLB2-8052914nm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 1967-71, the Reds couldn't seem to make up their minds. Here are the five road jerseys they wore in each of those five seasons, in chronological order...

dgstylematch1.JPG

I'm not a big study of baseball history and definitely feel that white outlines are a case by case thing. That said, the second jersey here (#19, presumably the '68 road) looks so much better than any of the others and a big part of that is the white outline being on both the script and numbers.

I agree with you about the case by case thing. I don't think one rule fits all. I think the white outlines on the Cincy jerseys provide a richer look, and you make a good point about the scripts and numbers matching.

The 60's had some great baseball uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, when I brought up the whole vertical arch stuff, I was specifically thinking of team names and wordmarks, not NOB. The Redwings' NOB is nice and I can't really picture them any other way. The problem with a radial arch on the NOB is you need to use smaller letters or you end up with this mess...

pMLB2-8052914nm.jpg

To be fair, Cincinnati used an ENORMOUS NOB font during that era. Hell, it's bigger than the wordmark.

Side note, imagine if Jarrod Saltalamacchia played in that uniform! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dgstylematch1.JPG

...

(On topic, count me as a supporter of the classic Reds look sans-outline)

FWIW... seeing this pic quoted again while "in phone" makes the case for no white outline. The red on gray is clearly legible at a small size (or "far away"), but the red-white-gray is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay here's my opinion on the topic: lettering should either be one solid color or have only one outline. I absolutely hate the tigers road uniforms. they look way too busy. Blue and orange or even blue and white would be better. In the vast majority of cases I think one outline on a uniform is far superior to two and I prefer it to no outline most of the time on a grey baseball uniform. That's why the Reds uniforms and the Phillies don't necessary bother me but I do agree that the Phillies roads would be better with a blue outline and red script. So guess I am in the no white outlines camp, but for me that only applies if there are two keylines and not just one, especially on a grey baseball uniform. This issue is definitely not an absolute for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, when I brought up the whole vertical arch stuff, I was specifically thinking of team names and wordmarks, not NOB. The Redwings' NOB is nice and I can't really picture them any other way. The problem with a radial arch on the NOB is you need to use smaller letters or you end up with this mess...

pMLB2-8052914nm.jpg

To be fair, Cincinnati used an ENORMOUS NOB font during that era. Hell, it's bigger than the wordmark.

Side note, imagine if Jarrod Saltalamacchia played in that uniform! :P

The A would loop all the way around and overlap the S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, when I brought up the whole vertical arch stuff, I was specifically thinking of team names and wordmarks, not NOB. The Redwings' NOB is nice and I can't really picture them any other way. The problem with a radial arch on the NOB is you need to use smaller letters or you end up with this mess...

pMLB2-8052914nm.jpg

To be fair, Cincinnati used an ENORMOUS NOB font during that era. Hell, it's bigger than the wordmark.

Side note, imagine if Jarrod Saltalamacchia played in that uniform! :P

Come on... are supposed to pretend you didn't just say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Red having a red hat with only white lettering, the grey road uniforms need some sort of white in them, IMO. The white outline provided that rather nicely.

I think it works that way, but I also think you can balance the white mark on the cap with some white stripes on the socks, for example, if the lettering is only one color.

My point was, the Reds jerseys without the white outline in photographs and video look like the s****y jerseys at the store. When they added the white outlines to the city and numbers in 1988 it brought that entire uniform together. The white tied in with the white stripes on the sleeves, collars, cap logo, belt, pants stripe, and sanitary socks. It became a complete look at that point.

and it looked fantastic last year when they wore it in Philadelphia

20120822-205549.jpg

Tackle twill has enough heft, it just looks worse (IMO of course) without the white outline.

I don't think it works as well as you think it does for two reasons: 1. The scale/weight relationships of the white areas don't work very well together. 2. The white in the stripes is surrounded by red, while the white in the lettering bleeds out into the grey, creating a dissonant color relationship. I think the white outline on the lettering would work better if there was more solid white trim elsewhere on the uniform bleeding into the grey field, whether that means flipping the red and white on the jersey trim and shrinking the white down to the proper scale, or just using white trim on the jersey instead of red and white (which is unbelievably rare).

Now, consider this: If you were to remove the white trim from the lettering in the above image, you create great relationships. The weight of the lettering matches up nicely with the thinner red stripes around the collar and sleeves, while the weight of the numerals matches up well with the thicker stripes in the belt. Finally, the white in the jersey trims never looks misplaced because it is balanced by the color relationship of the cap (the white mark surrounded by the red field matches up well with the white stripes surrounded by red stripes, actually in both color and weight).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, when I brought up the whole vertical arch stuff, I was specifically thinking of team names and wordmarks, not NOB. The Redwings' NOB is nice and I can't really picture them any other way. The problem with a radial arch on the NOB is you need to use smaller letters or you end up with this mess...

pMLB2-8052914nm.jpg

To be fair, that photo is either of an actual Mitchell and Ness reproduction or one of the many knockoffs that are out there, and I've yet to see one get the Concepcion jersey right. Here are a couple of photos that depict how the lettering on his jersey actually looked. Yes, it still looked like crap (why did they use SUCH LARGE letters?), but not quite as bad as the one in the photo above.

worldseries_redsB.jpg

1982_Topps_In_Action.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer white outlines, myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.