mgdmhl

Milwaukee Bucks Unveil New Logos/Colors, Jerseys & Court

Recommended Posts

So what they are contending is that if you look at the numerals...the 3 and the 8 do not conform to this. Taken out of context this is clearly true. The 3 and 8 have the telltale block font 45 degree notches that we are used to seeing on 3s and 8s on uniforms almost everywhere.

Doubleday's CLAIM is that this is some nod to pre-digital artwork legacy errors in the old Bucks set. I can not cry B*** S*** loud enough on that.

What they don't mention is that the 1 disobeys convention too. There's only one other letter in the set that uses less than "X" width of a block. The numeral 4 also has a tiny nub of the crossbar hanging off as is sometimes customary. Why only on those two letters? And why not the same width? The serif on the 1 is 1/3X while the nub on the 4 is 1/2X

Also the 2 and the 3 don't follow the SAME convention. The upper left corner of the 2 turns downward (curve like) for 1X. The 3 has none. Why not? Almost every block font there is treat the tops of 2s and 3s similarly. Even Oregon's does.

The bottoms of the 2 and 3 are straight and different from the bottoms of the 5 and 9 which turn upward. I would not call any of those four characters "wrong" per say. But they are certainly not consistent with the bare bones block font parameters they started out with. And none of that even addresses the 4 or the 7 which break convention and use diagonal lines. Diagonals are not forbidden in block fonts. But again, you can create 7s and 4s without diagonals if you want to. So to me the 4 and 7 would also represent technical "wrongness" if you buy what Doubleday is selling. By THEIR criteria I mean. So why only mention 3&8?

But let's get back to the notches. Right? It's all about the notches.

Why does the "B" have a notch in the alphabet? Why does it have 45 degree upper and lower corners on the righthand side? But the C doesn't....have 45s. the D does. And then none of the further letters have them after that. Are the 45 degree corners on the B and D technical errors? 36 total characters created from scratch and only 2 have 45s on the corners? What gives? Are you married to this super straight letter font guys or not? WTH? When things get tough and your D is about to look like a zero you bail on it? Wusses. Why does the center crossbar in the E go all the way across but the F doesnt'? LAME.

How about the crossbars at the middle of each letter. Look at them. ONLY the G is lower than center. Why? that's random. Right? I think they were trying to give it an X-height space between the curved down upper right corner and the crossbar so they moved it down. But look at the number 6!!! 6 is pretty much the same as G in a LOT of block fonts but for one connected crossbar. And yet here 6 obeys the convention where G breaks it.

And of course I could keep pointing out all this stupidness all night but the alphabet begins to tear down convention for all of us beginning with letter K and then M, N, Q, V, W, X, Y and Z. The alphabet is littered the letters at the back end that trash your carefully crafted notions of "rules" for your custom block typeface....which is why most end up just giving up and cribbing close to standard team issue fonts for those letters as they did here. My guess is that although the X ratio is still in tact in terms of how wide the ascenders are and how tall the diagonals are...that the letters I just listed like K, M,N,V,W,X,Y and Z are within 99% tolerances for the letters the Packers or anybody wears on their nameplates.

So......these guys (when it comes to this font and their "story" ) are complete clowns IMO. And I say that with honestly no malice. My first couple "custom" fonts played out just like this. But I darned sure didn't lie about it.

And the truth is if you always obey your own "rules" your font can still look like garbage. Right? You'll have 1s that look like 7s like the Eagles wear.

So just be honest about it. Don't be so insecure. There is very little consistency in the typeface they made. So? My guess is they never made a full one before. And it's their own fault. They could have just used something that already existed.

Does that answer your question? The notches are totally wrong on the 3 and the 8. But not any more wrong than 25 other things I've found. They shouldn't have brought it up. I think being self conscious is what happened here and covering up for it with a lie....basically. I don't even believe the Bucks asked them to do anything of the sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what they are contending is that if you look at the numerals...the 3 and the 8 do not conform to this. Taken out of context this is clearly true. The 3 and 8 have the telltale block font 45 degree notches that we are used to seeing on 3s and 8s on uniforms almost everywhere.

Doubleday's CLAIM is that this is some nod to pre-digital artwork legacy errors in the old Bucks set. I can not cry B*** S*** loud enough on that.

What they don't mention is that the 1 disobeys convention too. There's only one other letter in the set that uses less than "X" width of a block. The numeral 4 also has a tiny nub of the crossbar hanging off as is sometimes customary. Why only on those two letters? And why not the same width? The serif on the 1 is 1/3X while the nub on the 4 is 1/2X

Also the 2 and the 3 don't follow the SAME convention. The upper left corner of the 2 turns downward (curve like) for 1X. The 3 has none. Why not? Almost every block font there is treat the tops of 2s and 3s similarly. Even Oregon's does.

The bottoms of the 2 and 3 are straight and different from the bottoms of the 5 and 9 which turn upward. I would not call any of those four characters "wrong" per say. But they are certainly not consistent with the bare bones block font parameters they started out with. And none of that even addresses the 4 or the 7 which break convention and use diagonal lines. Diagonals are not forbidden in block fonts. But again, you can create 7s and 4s without diagonals if you want to. So to me the 4 and would also represent technical "wrongness" if you buy what Doubleday is selling.

But let's get back to the notches. Right? It's all about the notches.

Why does the "B" have a notch in the alphabet? Why does it have 45 degree upper and lower corners on the righthand side? But the C doesn't....have 45s. the D does. And then none of the further letters have them after that. Are the 45 degree corners on the B and D technical errors? 36 total characters created from scratch and only 2 have 45s on the corners? What gives? Are you married to this super straight letter font guys or not? WTH? When things get tough and your D is about to look like a zero you bail on it? Wusses. Why does the center crossbar in the E go all the way across but the F doesnt'? LAME.

How about the crossbars at the middle of each letter. Look at them. ONLY the G is lower than center. Why? that's random. Right? I think they were trying to give it an X-height space between the curved down upper right corner and the crossbar so they moved it down. But look at the number 6!!! 6 is pretty much the same as G in a LOT of block fonts but for one connected crossbar. And yet here 6 obeys the convention where G breaks it.

And of course I could keep pointing out all this stupidness all night but the alphabet begins to tear down convention for all of us beginning with letter K and then M, N, Q, V, W, X, Y and Z. The alphabet is littered the letters at the back end that trash your carefully crafted notions of "rules" for your custom block typeface....which is why most end up just giving up and cribbing close to standard team issue fonts for those letters as they did here. My guess is that although the X ratio is still in tact in terms of how wide the ascenders are and how tall the diagonals are...that the letters I just listed like K, M,N,V,W,X,Y and Z are within 99% tolerances for the letters the Packers or anybody wears on their nameplates.

So......these guys (when it comes to this font and their "story" ) are complete clowns IMO. And I say that with honestly no malice. My first couple "custom" fonts played out just like this. But I darned sure didn't lie about it.

And the truth is if you always obey your own "rules" your font can still look like garbage. Right? You'll have 1s that look like 7s like the Eagles wear.

So just be honest about it. Don't be so insecure. There is very little consistency in the typeface they made. So? My guess is they never made a full one before. And it's their own fault. They could have just used something that already existed.

Does that answer your question? The notches are totally wrong on the 3 and the 8. But not any more wrong than 25 other things I've found. They shouldn't have brought it up. I think being self conscious is what happened here and covering up for it with a lie....basically. I don't even believe the Bucks asked them to do anything of the sort.

Nobody is going to read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it. And the previous posts. Seems a bit harsh, but it's fair game when you put yourself out there. I'll say I prefer "insecure BS" on notches to the crafted Nike-speak BS.

On the blue again... they never really said what shade they had in mind, did they? I agree that a wider range than Knicks, Thunder and Carolina is likely available, unless the Grizzlies, Nuggets and Clippers all use the same shade of "Carolina."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what they are contending is that if you look at the numerals...the 3 and the 8 do not conform to this. Taken out of context this is clearly true. The 3 and 8 have the telltale block font 45 degree notches that we are used to seeing on 3s and 8s on uniforms almost everywhere.

Doubleday's CLAIM is that this is some nod to pre-digital artwork legacy errors in the old Bucks set. I can not cry B*** S*** loud enough on that.

What they don't mention is that the 1 disobeys convention too. There's only one other letter in the set that uses less than "X" width of a block. The numeral 4 also has a tiny nub of the crossbar hanging off as is sometimes customary. Why only on those two letters? And why not the same width? The serif on the 1 is 1/3X while the nub on the 4 is 1/2X

Also the 2 and the 3 don't follow the SAME convention. The upper left corner of the 2 turns downward (curve like) for 1X. The 3 has none. Why not? Almost every block font there is treat the tops of 2s and 3s similarly. Even Oregon's does.

The bottoms of the 2 and 3 are straight and different from the bottoms of the 5 and 9 which turn upward. I would not call any of those four characters "wrong" per say. But they are certainly not consistent with the bare bones block font parameters they started out with. And none of that even addresses the 4 or the 7 which break convention and use diagonal lines. Diagonals are not forbidden in block fonts. But again, you can create 7s and 4s without diagonals if you want to. So to me the 4 and would also represent technical "wrongness" if you buy what Doubleday is selling.

But let's get back to the notches. Right? It's all about the notches.

Why does the "B" have a notch in the alphabet? Why does it have 45 degree upper and lower corners on the righthand side? But the C doesn't....have 45s. the D does. And then none of the further letters have them after that. Are the 45 degree corners on the B and D technical errors? 36 total characters created from scratch and only 2 have 45s on the corners? What gives? Are you married to this super straight letter font guys or not? WTH? When things get tough and your D is about to look like a zero you bail on it? Wusses. Why does the center crossbar in the E go all the way across but the F doesnt'? LAME.

How about the crossbars at the middle of each letter. Look at them. ONLY the G is lower than center. Why? that's random. Right? I think they were trying to give it an X-height space between the curved down upper right corner and the crossbar so they moved it down. But look at the number 6!!! 6 is pretty much the same as G in a LOT of block fonts but for one connected crossbar. And yet here 6 obeys the convention where G breaks it.

And of course I could keep pointing out all this stupidness all night but the alphabet begins to tear down convention for all of us beginning with letter K and then M, N, Q, V, W, X, Y and Z. The alphabet is littered the letters at the back end that trash your carefully crafted notions of "rules" for your custom block typeface....which is why most end up just giving up and cribbing close to standard team issue fonts for those letters as they did here. My guess is that although the X ratio is still in tact in terms of how wide the ascenders are and how tall the diagonals are...that the letters I just listed like K, M,N,V,W,X,Y and Z are within 99% tolerances for the letters the Packers or anybody wears on their nameplates.

So......these guys (when it comes to this font and their "story" ) are complete clowns IMO. And I say that with honestly no malice. My first couple "custom" fonts played out just like this. But I darned sure didn't lie about it.

And the truth is if you always obey your own "rules" your font can still look like garbage. Right? You'll have 1s that look like 7s like the Eagles wear.

So just be honest about it. Don't be so insecure. There is very little consistency in the typeface they made. So? My guess is they never made a full one before. And it's their own fault. They could have just used something that already existed.

Does that answer your question? The notches are totally wrong on the 3 and the 8. But not any more wrong than 25 other things I've found. They shouldn't have brought it up. I think being self conscious is what happened here and covering up for it with a lie....basically. I don't even believe the Bucks asked them to do anything of the sort.

Nobody is going to read that.

I read it. Most posters here value sterling's POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought of a simpler way to phrase it on the font notches issue.

Do the 3 and 8 break the rules? Yes. But the rules were impossible to obey if they wanted to be able to read it. Rules THEY set up were impossible to follow. Which makes them dumb rules.

If you take that grid that I created? Upthread? And fill it in? 0 and D will be identical. B and 8 will be identical. R and A will be identical.

So they set these unmeetable conditions. Subsequently broke them...in many more than two places ... and then for some reason probably made up a marketing speak story to address one discrepancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it. And the previous posts. Seems a bit harsh, but it's fair game when you put yourself out there. I'll say I prefer "insecure BS" on notches to the crafted Nike-speak BS.

On the blue again... they never really said what shade they had in mind, did they? I agree that a wider range than Knicks, Thunder and Carolina is likely available, unless the Grizzlies, Nuggets and Clippers all use the same shade of "Carolina."

@ Cubs....I don't disagree with how this lie sounds vs how Nike copy reads. Nike is overtly so much worse. This seems not that. This a lot of attention to heap on these people. And sometimes we all exaggerate and self-inflate when there is no reason to do so. If Brian Williams can be guilty of it too, then these guys with much less fame or power or experience can. BUT he lied or exaggerated and they did too. So it happens but it ain't right. Right?. I'm not trying to hate on them personally even though the venom is flowing freely. I hate what they made. I hate that it's "mine" by association and that by stroke of fate their silliness was documented in print and they felt compelled or allowed themselves to embellish and even brag about it and.. OK maybe I do hate them just a little bit. :-P

I'll admit this typography thing has sewed the seeds of larger discontent in me. The calling of the shot "we can draw a better nose" was embarrassing. The "if you know your color theory" line was the worst.

But the notches comment is the only one that makes me doubt their sincerity and integrity.

Ask yourselves this. Did the Bucks really even ask them for a nod to the past in the form of a digital font error? Really? Seems like a very odd request to me. Digital artwork basically becomes industry standard in the what? Late 80s? Early 90s? So whatever they claim the Bucks were referring to was almost certainly the original artwork for the Bucks IF it is indeed an actual pre-digital issue. Right? Purple was digital. So before that is what they must have been referring to. And would anyone working with the Bucks today even remember that? Let alone make a point to ask for it? It's possible but is it likely?

The old Bucks seemed to have worn basic block numerals from near inception and all the way up to the change in 1993. So I'm assuming the notch in the 3 and 8 were only symbolic intentional errors?...not literal carryover errors from other 3s and 8s throughout the years?. What an odd thing to ask for.... No? Especially since the organization just spent basically 8 years honoring the Alcindor and Robertson and McGlocklin red and green Bucks overtly with the color scheme. This new stuff, new direction, new arena, new owners all seems very forward focused so why go back and specifically make a point on the uniform equivalent of a 40-year old typo? Why?

Unless of course they are referring to errors in other letter characters or the Bango artwork itself. In which case "honoring" them with changes to OTHER characters like a 3 and 8 seems super meta and totally pointless. I....do not believe it.

And when you do not believe something it makes you doubt the person or persons who said it. So now i DO doubt the color comments too....maybe the NBA didn't restrict them on blues at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cringed at the "if you know your color theory" line, especially when they chased that with "well, blue wasn't the obvious choice color-theory-wise." Maybe they were chasing their own tail a bit.

And is it bad that I think I've learned to filter out the pretention (perceived or otherwise) in Lukas' copy?

Because upon reflection the called shot and notch thing could have been worded better. I'll chalk it up to them being new to the spotlight. But you make fair points.

And I actually do like this look so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sterling - and I'm only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sterling - and I'm only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Ha LOL!

It's not a healthy relationship I have with this topic. AT ALL. Is it?

I feel like Frank the Tank a little bit. Just totally all or nothing. I can go years. I can stay off this site and really for the most part not even think about nor obsess about this stuff at all. I'm a normal dude. And then Wham! I'm running through the streets naked shouting about intentional font notches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running through the streets naked shouting about intentional font notches.

You've inspired me to launch a garage band dubbed Intentional Font Notches. Should we be lucky enough to score a record deal, our debut album will be titled "Color Theory", featuring the hit single "A Better Nose".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we get a cream "pride" uni. What do you think the chances are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mod edit

Edited by Ice_Cap
you can disagree with someone's analysis without being a dick about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad Ice..lesson learned.

Btw. @Teal from the uniform/logo sheet it looks as though Milwaukee maybe getting a black, green and white uniforms. But i wouldn't rule out cream unis until 2yrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya see, if you know anything about Kangaroos it's that that they are easy to draw incorrectly. If you're not careful they could end up looking like a whitetailed deer. So you have to give them Space Ghost eyes and make sure NOT to put antlers on them. Cause Roos don't have antlers. If you put antlers on them by mistake I'm telling you....it's gonna look almost a little bit like a deer.

So in this logo we've make sure everyone knows it's kangaroo by being prolly the top 25th percentile in kangaroo drawers nationwide. Once that was done, then we kept finding ourselves drawn back to the area of the hind limbs and then it hit us....There's an M in there! In the toes! But since roos have two feet we ended up with two Ms hidden in the feet. But don't worry. Milwaukee is a city AND a county! So we're covered. Now each M still stands for something important.

We have a very minimalist tool and die inspired, completely custom typeface. THere are NO errors in it. The H looks like a K and the A is instinguishable from an R. But complete fidelity to the rules of fontography was maintained.

The half moon green shape that the name Kangaroos rests in may seem arbitrary but it's actually a subtle nod to the Summerfest logo. The giant music festival that takes place down on the lakefront is a Milwaukee event. Lakefront = water. Water - blue. So...blue gloves.

See the Futuroo!

Kangaroos_zps6loho7ak.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love how you hid a G in the glove.

Clearly it stands for Greatness.

Share this post


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