MJWalker45 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 So playing around with the logo slick from the 2012 NIKE takeover of the NFL for the San Fran 49ers, I accidentally released a few clipping masks and this was what I found['52 throwback?]Not sure what year this is from, but what could this mean for their uniform future? Sir, you might be on to something there. I do acknowledge the one helmet rule, which probably means Nike scrapped the idea or is waiting for something to change. I also found it interesting. (I unclipped the Dolphins and Packers slicks and found nothing). But the Packers don't wear the Speed Machine/Elite51, but they were listed as having that design. I don't know. These slicks are interesting. I wish I could get a hold of the Buccaneers newest one. The replicas for all teams are put on the Elite 51 template regardless of if the team actually uses it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'm the opposite. The old way looked like two separate birds, which they were, while the new looks like a two-headed beast of some sort. The separation made more sense when considered in the context of there being that ridge that ran down the middle of most helmets.I didn't like this at first but have come to appreciate it. I guess I see it more as the mythic totem pole type look which is completely in keeping with the Seahawk origins. I guess I could see that whole "totem pole" explanation as more legitimate if they had gone back to the original design, which was more directly related to Northwest Indian Art.Their first logo was pretty much a straight up representation of a historic piece...The updated version (which is still a pretty nice design IMO) loses a lot of the authenticity and charm for the sake of a basic modern sports logo "toughness" approach, that we see over and over these days.(Damn, that original logo is amazing... the colors, the atypical-for-sports linework... makes me kind of sad to see them side by side.) http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFB Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 That's a crap opinion. The only thing the old logo has going for it is nostalgia and better colors. The new logo is superior, not because it is apparently "tougher", but because has better line work, consistent line weight, and a shape that actually ends and flows without the context of a helmet. Just because a design is old doesn't mean that it should be allowed to be sloppy. There are logos that are much older than the Seahawks (the Red Wings, Blackhawks, etc...) that have great line work. The old Seahawks logo was a great idea that was executed poorly and was profoundly improved by the latest revision, end of debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sozopol Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Couldn't agree more about the original seahawk logo being superior. The revised one isn't bad, but it is pretty much just another fierce bird logo. The original is a really cool, unique, and locally meaningful design. The team lost something when they revised, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 The revised Seahawks logo is alright. It's not a bad logo at all, and the older one really did need an update because it looked pretty wonky. But I feel like they could've given it a revision and kept more of that Native American feel to it than they did.I also really liked their original colors. But that slate blue they chose, woo boy, was that a beautiful color. That's the biggest thing from the current revision that I think they messed up. I think the Seahawks look good now, but I REALLY wish they would've held on to that gorgeous shade of blue. On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk9 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Couldn't agree more about the original seahawk logo being superior. The revised one isn't bad, but it is pretty much just another fierce bird logo. The original is a really cool, unique, and locally meaningful design. The team lost something when they revised, imo.Very much agree. The old logo image is what you would have found on totem poles by the native americans, not the modern fierce use one used now, along with the feather stripe icons on the pants. Hate navy blue, especially mono blue combo. Miss the original royal blue, kelly green and silver colors which no one now uses in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinturner95 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 So playing around with the logo slick from the 2012 NIKE takeover of the NFL for the San Fran 49ers, I accidentally released a few clipping masks and this was what I found['52 throwback?]Not sure what year this is from, but what could this mean for their uniform future? Sir, you might be on to something there. I do acknowledge the one helmet rule, which probably means Nike scrapped the idea or is waiting for something to change. I also found it interesting. (I unclipped the Dolphins and Packers slicks and found nothing). But the Packers don't wear the Speed Machine/Elite51, but they were listed as having that design. I don't know. These slicks are interesting. I wish I could get a hold of the Buccaneers newest one. The replicas for all teams are put on the Elite 51 template regardless of if the team actually uses it.I was talking about the actual uniform designs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 That's a crap opinion. The only thing the old logo has going for it is nostalgia and better colors. The new logo is superior, not because it is apparently "tougher", but because has better line work, consistent line weight, and a shape that actually ends and flows without the context of a helmet. Just because a design is old doesn't mean that it should be allowed to be sloppy. There are logos that are much older than the Seahawks (the Red Wings, Blackhawks, etc...) that have great line work. The old Seahawks logo was a great idea that was executed poorly and was profoundly improved by the latest revision, end of debate.Wow. Bite me. http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I mean, they cleaned it up and gave it a bit more of a furrowed brow. The old one is a 70's take on Native American art, and the new one is a circa 2000 take on Native American art. It's fine to like the old one better, but don't delude yourself into thinking it's "pretty much a straight up representation of a historical piece". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I mean, they cleaned it up and gave it a bit more of a furrowed brow. The old one is a 70's take on Native American art, and the new one is a circa 2000 take on Native American art. It's fine to like the old one better, but don't delude yourself into thinking it's "pretty much a straight up representation of a historical piece".Ok, well, I guess I'll just post this picture again. http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'll just post this again: "The old one is a 70's take on Native American art, and the new one is a circa 2000 take on Native American art."It's a straight up representation of a historical piece... with a two-tone motion line behind it and a funky eye.They really didn't change much in the new one; I think the heart of the design is still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk9 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'll just post this again: "The old one is a 70's take on Native American art, and the new one is a circa 2000 take on Native American art."It's a straight up representation of a historical piece... with a two-tone motion line behind it and a funky eye.They really didn't change much in the new one; I think the heart of the design is still there.WOW, so your saying in the year 2000, the totem image on the right looks closer to the new logo of today rather than the original logo on the left ??????The original logo would have been carved into the wood on the totem rather than the sleek image of the new one. The original logo would work better with the other native american art as on the current uniforms with the icon wings and jersey yoke striping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'm the opposite. The old way looked like two separate birds, which they were, while the new looks like a two-headed beast of some sort. The separation made more sense when considered in the context of there being that ridge that ran down the middle of most helmets.I didn't like this at first but have come to appreciate it. I guess I see it more as the mythic totem pole type look which is completely in keeping with the Seahawk origins. I guess I could see that whole "totem pole" explanation as more legitimate if they had gone back to the original design, which was more directly related to Northwest Indian Art.Their first logo was pretty much a straight up representation of a historic piece...The updated version (which is still a pretty nice design IMO) loses a lot of the authenticity and charm for the sake of a basic modern sports logo "toughness" approach, that we see over and over these days.(Damn, that original logo is amazing... the colors, the atypical-for-sports linework... makes me kind of sad to see them side by side.)Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackieMoon Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I miss the old look of a lot of teams. The NFL is going away from it's roots.EaglesBuccaneersFalconsSeahawksRams (pre-gold)BengalsJaguarsBroncosAll need to go back to their original sets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I liked the slate blue the Seahawks used because it felt like it was customized just for Seattle's blue-greyness. Navy blue, that could be anyone. I'd have kept the slate blue and used more neon green. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRicSlick Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Wasn't "Slate Blue" owned by Reebok? If yes, well you can guess why they didn't use it in the Nike redesign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hailstateunis Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that "Seahawks Blue" was an ugly, dull color. The color scheme was the biggest upgrade made in 2012. http://www.hailstateunis.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Wasn't "Slate Blue" owned by Reebok? If yes, well you can guess why they didn't use it in the Nike redesign.You can't own a color outright. They did develop the color though which has a specific rgb value. What reebok could have owned is the process of producing that rgb value across various media (print/fabric etc) that they would likely not want to share with nike unless the hawks took ownership of the IP. Theoretically nike could have also acquired the IP necessary to produce the color or even reverse engineer the color via color matching technology. As we all know nike loves their proprietary shades and given that sea hawk blue was a rbk color it was a perfect opportunity to put their stamp on the rebrand.If anyone has more clarity on the subject matter feel free to correct me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinturner95 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that "Seahawks Blue" was an ugly, dull color. The color scheme was the biggest upgrade made in 2012.The light blue was hideous to my eyes. You aren't alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I loved the slate blue at the time, but it didn't age well. It looks especially awful on fans still wearing jerseys in that color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.