NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Dear New York Yankees,
I love you. Let’s get that clear from the start. It’s unconditional. I loved you when you traded for Ken Phelps I loved you when you finished in last place in 1990. I loved you when George was banned, and still loved you when he came back. So I hope you understand that what I’m going to say is said out of deep embrace than of callous embitterment. I can’t be bitter; I’m not from Boston.
So, here’s the deal: your all-star game logo, for the final, wonderful year of Yankee Stadium, sucks.
I know, I can hear you defending it until you are blue in the face. “It’s got pinstripes! And The Facade™. It’s pure tradition. Like the Yankees are tradition. It’s even got Trajan. How much more tradition can you get? You see Trajan and you think of Roman legions, sculptors creating monuments to imperial battles, the trains running on time! Ok, forget that last part. But it’s tradition. We’re no hippies like those folks in San Francisco. You know, the place that stole another NY team over 40 years ago.”
Ok, ok, ok. I get your angle. Yes, tradition. Here’s a great tradition you should try: beautifully drawn illustration. I’ve got no beef with the pinstripes or the facade. This logo HAS to have the most famous baseball landmark in history. But does it have to be so boring? It’s so little. And static. The facade on the pre-renovated Yankee Stadium encircled the entire top of the upper deck. How about showing a little of that curvature and dimension? This logo could have been all about The Facade, the way SF’s logo was about McCovey Cove. Instead, it’s just a little measly part, a utility player, if you will.
And can we talk about those swooshy borders? Wouldn’t a nice simple oval have worked? I don’t recall the interlocking NY needing any swooshes around it. It looks like the words “All-Star Game” are trying to burst out, like they’re bulking up on steroids or something. Oh, I shouldn’t have said the S-word. Did I mention I still love you?
Let’s discuss that Trajan. I didn’t realize the all-star game was a movie. Because that’s the movie typeface. It’s got no place in baseball. It’s so overused, it should be put next to Comic Sans and Mrs. Eaves in the Typographic Hall of Shame. (And no, Mrs. Eaves was not DiMaggio’s pet name for Marilyn.) Look at the beautiful art-deco typeface those west coast folks used for their logo. Nice, right? What about something to remind us of the era when Yankee Stadium was built? Not this faux-roman-we’re-in-the-movies thing.
I won’t belabor this any longer. I’m just disappointed. You are an icon of sports. And this logo is just, so, not ready for Monument Park.
With love,
JonSel
P.S. I know I only have a small season ticket package, but do you think I’ll get some tickets to the home run derby?
Jump to Most Recent Comment
pat’s comment is:
Mrs. Eaves in the Typographic hall of shame!? :O
On Sep.02.2007 at 02:00 AM
Doug’s comment is:
I completely agree. The pinstripe elements are completely lost in a sea of blue and especially when the image is reduced to the thumbnail we're seeing. This smacks of design by committee and that splash of red is not any part of Yankee lore.
I liked how Detroit's ASG logo from 2005 looked.
Vincent’s comment is:
That looks to me like fake small caps, as well. A typographical sin, if there ever was one. I could be wrong, but that S and G look like scaled-up versions normal capital S and G because they're both a little heavier. Might just be my eyes though.
On Sep.02.2007 at 03:01 AM
JonSel’s comment is:
Yes, those are fake small caps.
And red does exist in the Yankee palette, just not very often. A version of this jacket was used in, I believe, the '98 season as well.
On Sep.02.2007 at 09:10 AM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
I think everyone is coming down really hard on this. It's truly not that bad compared to many sports logos of late (um, London 2012). It might help if the facade were larger, to bring out some of that detail, but otherwise it's pretty tidy.
I believe that Trajan Pro has a small caps version, but regular old Trajan is available in caps only.
On Sep.02.2007 at 09:51 AM
felix’s comment is:
agreed Jonsel. Nice to see you scribin' here.
One note on the previous (Schwab) design... you may prefer to see the what he has on his website. The flying ball outta the park? Fughettaboudit.
On Sep.02.2007 at 01:06 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
This logo is lame. Looks like an event logo you'd see Budwieser or Coors slapped onto.
The Yankee blue is actually a little darker then shown in the graphic posted and yes each MLB team has a secondary team color and the Yankees is a Red.
This could have been a great mark but they struck out at this design at bat.
On Sep.02.2007 at 01:52 PM
hcabbos’s comment is:
Ditto on Mrs. Eaves. What's innately wrong or bad about it?
On Sep.02.2007 at 04:49 PM
JonSel’s comment is:
Felix, I hadn't seen Schwab's originals. They are beautiful in their own right, but I have to say I love the ball splashing down. It's one of those things that makes the image purely SF and not a generic ballpark vista.
And for of you complaining about my inclusion of Mrs. Eaves, I am referencing the overuse of the typeface, like Trajan. I think Trajan and Mrs. Eaves are both very nicely drawn faces, and have used both. I just think they need to be put on the shelf for awhile.
On Sep.02.2007 at 09:41 PM
Joe M’s comment is:
Doesn't the more-recent nostalgia of neutraface (1940/2003) also deserve to be shelved?
On Sep.03.2007 at 12:05 AM
Alex’s comment is:
And is that Bank Gothic they're using for the smaller type? That's an even bigger no-no for me than Trajan.
They also put small red type on a blue field. Why not just add a drop shadow or faux bevel while they're at it?
On Sep.03.2007 at 10:44 AM
Calvin Ross Carl’s comment is:
The 2007 logo was actually pretty unique for a sports logo. It's a shame they went back to something so trite for 2008.
On Sep.03.2007 at 05:56 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
I've been staring at that 2007 logo and it finally hit me what was bugging me about it. The trajectory of the ball is all wrong. As is it looks like Bonds just tossed the ball into the drink from deep right field. If the ball was actually hit from the batters box the trajectory would look totally different.
I suppose this is the design industries equivalent of a 'Continuity Error' found in a motion picture production?
I still think the current mark looks more like something 'Bud Light' would do.
Aaron’s comment is:
I'm not a huge fan either. For what it's worth the blame should be placed on the MLB Creative staff. I believe it's Major League Baseball that designs all All-Star and postseason logos.
On Sep.03.2007 at 10:40 PM
Mara Kurtz’s comment is:
Boring? Yes.
Ugly type? Yes.
Hokey design? Yes.
Comic Sans. Yuck.
Dissing Mrs. Eaves? Never!
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
Is it bad? I don't know. Is it surprising? Not at all. It's rare that a sports logo would have the designerly quality that tends to pass for "good" amongst designers, especially around here. Honestly, it's a nice, simple, quality mark, and is miles ahead of most sports branding. The designers could have gradiated and beveled the crap out of it, maybe thrown in 4 colors, with a flying ball, but they chose to remain understated, and for that I applaud them. Is it everything it could be? Probably not. But it's a sports logo. You gotta grade on a curve.
On Sep.04.2007 at 09:42 AM
Ty’s comment is:
Pinstripes? What pinstripes? The whole element of the pinstripes, which in and of itself is a great idea to unify the MLB and Yanks brands, is lost because the text outlines break it up. Decent idea, poor execution all around on this on.
On Sep.04.2007 at 10:36 AM
Jackson’s comment is:
Ditto on Mrs. Eaves. What's innately wrong or bad about it?
The spacing.
On Sep.04.2007 at 12:11 PM
Eddie Wilson’s comment is:
I think some direction as to why this logo is bad would be much more helpful, instead of a breakdown on which typefaces are better than others.
Sure its a nice symetrical piece of vector craftsmanship but...
I think the logo doesnt work because it lacks any emotion to the event which is represents. Its a very "shirts-tucked, nice straight lines fellaz" logo. Maybe thats what they wanted? Who knows. If they were looking for the "Fughettaboudit, we love baseball and beer" crowd then they missed the mark.
Goal people! We have to undertand the goals that the design team set out to achieve before we can even begin to complain about that horrible red on blue type (and yes....anyone who puts small red type on ANYTHING that will be on tv should be shot).
On another note (Which I'm sure is gonna be gas on the fire) but the previous year's logo looks more like a poster than a logo. Of course THAT might have been the intention (at which it works extremely well), anywhere else and its too complex for my eye to follow as a single entity. Maybe that was the reason for this new one?
On Sep.04.2007 at 04:55 PM
mattsh’s comment is:
It's pretty tough to compare the over use of comic sans or papyrus to Mrs Eaves. At least until Mrs. Eaves is becomes a pre-installed Windows font.
On Sep.04.2007 at 07:38 PM
Shane’s comment is:
I don't see much wrong with the logo, I hate the 2007 logo only because of the stupid ball flying out of the park it ruined it, but seeing the logo on Schwab's site reminded of how beautiful it was supposed to look.
The NY logo isn't THAT bad, it's a decent logo in my eyes. I enjoy the simplicity of it.
On Sep.04.2007 at 10:03 PM
errol dwithers’s comment is:
here's the problem:
when i look at it the only thing on there to make me thing baseball is the word 'baseball' and the mlb logo at the bottom. you know what it actually looks like? track and field. a big oval track around the outside with a field in the middle (the pinstripes make it look like a football field, but they could be the lines for measuring javelin or discus throws) and the stands are up at the top. i think it's terrible that it doesn't look yankee-like at all, but i think it's far worse that it doesn't look like baseball.
On Sep.04.2007 at 10:36 PM
errol dwithers’s comment is:
here's the problem:
when i look at it the only thing on there to make me think baseball is the word 'baseball' and the mlb logo at the bottom. you know what it actually looks like? track and field. a big oval track around the outside with a field in the middle (the pinstripes make it look like a football field, but they could be the lines for measuring javelin or discus throws) and the stands are up at the top. i think it's terrible that it doesn't look yankee-like at all, but i think it's far worse that it doesn't look like baseball.
On Sep.04.2007 at 10:36 PM
Mark’s comment is:
The Mrs. Eaves comment is uncalled for. It's a restrained design, not a gimmicky font. It no more needs to be put on the shelf for a while than do Helvetica, Bodoni, Baskerville, or Caslon.
Actually, Trajan falls into the same category.
On Sep.04.2007 at 10:51 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
Something interesting:
Zuzana Licko's selection of the name Mrs Eaves reveals an interesting story. Like his types, Baskerville was, himself, a controversial character. He hired Sarah Eaves as his housekeeper. Eventually her husband Richard, abandoned her and their five children, and Mrs Eaves became Baskerville's mistress, and eventual helpmate with typesetting and printing. On the death of Mrs. Eaves estranged husband, she married John Baskerville within the month. Selection of the name Mrs. Eaves honors one of the forgotten women in the history of typography.
On Sep.05.2007 at 12:35 AM
Kevin’s comment is:
Just so you know, the Green Monster is the most famous landmark in baseball history. And I even hate the Red Sox.
On Sep.05.2007 at 09:31 AM
Mark Wise’s comment is:
The side swooshes almost work to force perspective on the facade. That would have been cool.
The resemblance to a Bud logo is uncanny.
On Sep.05.2007 at 09:47 AM
Big D’s comment is:
This really comes down to two schools of thought:
illustration as a logo or a simplified mark.
The 2008 version falls into the classic Paul Rand or Lester Beal school which would dictate that you simplify a mark down to its essence. It is not a literal illustration of an idea but rather an identifier all its own that alludes to conceptual ideas.
The 2007 version is simply an illustration of a ball park with a baseball flying out. It is straighforward and does capture a bit of Americana. Is it ownable? I'm not to sure. It could be used for any baseball related article or artifact.
In the end there is room for both in this big world. The problem with approach number one is this: how do you differentiate an approach like this year after year? A different ballpark? After a while they all start to look the same.
On Sep.05.2007 at 10:00 AM
JonSel’s comment is:
Is it ownable? I'm not too sure. It could be used for any baseball related article or artifact.
This is valid if we're looking at a logo that is meant to represent an ongoing organization. But this is a one-time only event, so I don't see too much concern for an outright ownable design.
If you look at the history of all-star logos, there are many repeating motifs, from the big baseball and stitches, to the diamond, bats, and stadium and skyline illustrations.
All the elements needed for a really nice logo are there in the 2008 mark. They just weren't put together in an particularly interesting manner.
What made the '07 logo for me, and which many seem to dislike, is the ball splashing down in the water. That localizes it to San Francisco's AT&T Park and lifts it beyond a generic stadium illustration.
And speaking of the green monster, the 1999 logo uses that as the billboard for the typography. There's a few too many elements in it, but it has a much more contemporary feel than the 08 Yankee logo.
As long as we're looking back, I think this is just great.
On Sep.05.2007 at 10:18 AM
Mister Snitch!’s comment is:
'Trite' and 'static' are the right descriptions.
On Sep.05.2007 at 11:13 AM
Roger Goodell’s comment is:
sure it's boring. what could represent baseball more perfectly? especially an all-star game, the most boring event in any sport.
On Sep.05.2007 at 12:47 PM
JonSel’s comment is:
Was that you, Armin?
On Sep.05.2007 at 03:32 PM
g-sppud’s comment is:
The Yankees suck anyway - so this is fitting.
On Sep.06.2007 at 03:42 PM
g-sppud’s comment is:
Forgot to add...GO METS!
On Sep.06.2007 at 03:44 PM
kirkaracha’s comment is:
I'm distressed that using a star instead of a hyphen in "All-Star" has apparently been a design requirement since 1992.
On Sep.06.2007 at 06:10 PM
Yankee Lou’s comment is:
I think you are all goofy, typical bunch of dopes who are still jealous of the Yankees, shut up and get on with your life, the logo is awesome, it truly represents the Yankees and NYC. Yankee stadium, the Mount Olympus of sports history, may it reign forever and a day wherever it is located!!
On Sep.07.2007 at 12:27 AM
Ty’s comment is:
Dearest Yankee Lou,
Call me crazy, but I think the logo in no way does justice to the Yanks' legacy and status as the reigning team of MLB. If you think that the logo truly represents the Yanks and NYC, then you probably enjoy a good brochure in Comic Sans.
Go Yanks,
Ty
On Sep.07.2007 at 12:07 PM
Louie’s comment is:
whatever that means dearest TY, I still like the logo, I don't know what's wrong with it.
I haven't seen any all star logos that look any better than that, the logo for this year's all star game was completely asinine.
On Sep.08.2007 at 10:54 AM
Red Sox Jim’s comment is:
It's not very good. It would have been better with a Red Sox motif.
On Sep.09.2007 at 09:12 AM
Yael’s comment is:
Jon - I enjoy your writing - its just a pleasure to read! (And I'm no sports buff.)
I agree most of all with your comment about the curves on the oval's sides. At least be consistent with the classic 'seal' look. The contemporary curves just look out of place. A simple double border would have been more classic.
Also, the dimensionless stadium element really doesn't do much for a dynamic one-time event.
On Sep.09.2007 at 09:18 PM
Frank’s comment is:
..*yawn*..on to the next logo-rip-apart please.
On Sep.09.2007 at 09:55 PM
Roger’s comment is:
The University of Kansas is also moving to Trajan on their sports uniforms, partly guided by their Athletic Director Lew. Lou? Lew? Trajan? A font conspiracy. Creepy.
The students are fighting back, making tshirts with the old-style typeface that say simply Trajan Sucks.
On Sep.10.2007 at 03:04 PM
Jamsta’s comment is:
so conservative, so dull, so busy, so what? It's as boring as the game itself...
what is with all major american logo's being red, white and blue? Surely there's more original designers in the US of A? No? Maybe just fly your flag and be done with it...
On Sep.11.2007 at 09:35 AM
C-Lo’s comment is:
Red letters on navy backing at THAT size? I can't get past that. I literally had to put my fact to the monitor to see it
On Sep.25.2007 at 03:48 PM
Justin’s comment is:
I like Mrs Eaves - sorry, i just can't get passed that - what were ya'll talking about ?
On Apr.24.2008 at 05:41 PM
MikeScorpio’s comment is:
Folks, is anyone aware that the Trajan lettering style on the logo is the same as the old and new "Yankee Stadium" letters? If you look at a pic of the Yankee Stadium main entrance, the lettering at the top of the outside wall is the same style as the All Star logo. I think that's what they were going for -- to celebrate the Stadium, not so much the Yankees.
On Jul.10.2008 at 07:53 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
