In Which the Mets Find Yet Another Way to Be Confounding

An odd little storyline unfolded last night on social media, as fans noticed a subtle change that had been made to the Mets’ classic skyline logo. Here, see if you can spot it (ignore the color differences and the trademark symbols):

Can you see it? Look at the blue skyline, and zero in on the building just to the left of the trademark symbol. In the old version, the top of that building is squared off. It represents the United Nations building. In the new version, the top of the building is diagonal. And what might that represent, you ask? If you’re a New Yorker, you probably recognize it. For the rest of you, here, take a look.

That’s right. The Mets adjusted their logo to include the signature building of their stadium’s corporate sponsor. It’s disgusting. No, wait, it’s pathetically predictable. Okay, it’s both.

I’m going to shift into FAQ mode now:

Is that, like, an official change to the team’s official logo?

Apparently not. The MLB Style Guide still shows the classic version.

So where is the Citi-fied version of the logo being used?

On social media. For the past few days it was being used as the avatar on the team’s Twitter and Facebook pages. After a bunch of fans and bloggers noticed it last night and began chattering about it, the Twitter avatar went back to the proper logo and the Facebook avatar was changed to a white flag (I made a screen shot of that, in case they change it again this morning), perhaps a tacit admission from the team’s social media staff that they couldn’t slip a rogue logo past us. Update: I’m now told that the white flag is the default icon for a Facebook page when no image is designated.

So they just created that logo a few days ago and swapped it in on social media?

It’s more complicated than that. They apparently uploaded that image to Facebook on Nov. 11 of last year, although they didn’t necessarily start using it as an avatar then. So this logo has definitely been floating around for a while, although it’s not clear where or how or to what extent it’s been used.

So that building with the diagonal top — that’s Citigroup’s corporate HQ?

That’s the weirdest thing about this. Quoting here from Wikipedia:

In 2001, Citicorp sold its controlling stake in the building for $755 million (cost of building adjusted for inflation: $569,794,069) to Boston Properties. Citigroup relocated its headquarters to 399 Park Avenue.

In 2008, building owner Boston Properties began the process of renaming the tower “601 Lexington Avenue.” Renovation of the lobby resulted in relocation of the tower’s entrance from 53rd Street to Lexington Avenue. All signage for Citigroup was removed from the building and surrounding block.

So even though the building is still colloquially associated with Citi (everyone still calls it the Citicorp Building or Citicorp Center), Citi no longer has anything to do with it. It’s sort of like how Chrysler no longer has anything to do with the Chrysler Building, but it’s still the Chrysler Building.

If Citi has nothing to do with the building, why would the Mets want to add it to their logo?

Good question.

Could this just be a low-level employee having fun, and maybe he doesn’t even realize that Citi is no longer tied to the that building?

That’s one possibility, sure.

Even if the team really did change its official logo to include the building, would that be so horrible?

I think you all know how I feel about the relentless incursion of corporate culture, branding, and sponsorship into every facet of American life. So yeah, if the Mets changed their logo to accommodate Citi, I think that would be pretty despicable (just like I think it’s pretty awful that the Brewers’ “M” logo is obviously based on the Miller Beer script).

But you just said yourself that Citi isn’t tied to that building anymore!

I know, I know! That’s the what’s so odd about all this.

Fucking Mets — they can’t even sell out properly.

(Special thanks reader Steve Dodell, who was the first one to bring the logo change to my attention, also to Phil and Mets Police honcho Shannon Shark for their assistance on this one.)

• • • • •

Collector’s Corner

By Brinke Guthrie

Ah, NFL TV show opens from the 1970s. Who can forget the terrific intro for Monday Night Football with How-ard, Frank, and the Danderoo? (And here’s an extended version of that song, called “Score,” by Bob’s Band.) Something about that music has stayed with me all these years, and I still get a shiver hearing it, ’cause right after that, it’s time to play. I feel the same way about this later MNF theme and this CBS “NFL Today” open. Timeless stuff.

With all of that in mind, this 1970s CBS Sports shirt would fit right in with those Sunday-morning CBS pregame shows, eh? Or this 1970s crew jacket for ABC’s MNF.

Here are the rest of this week’s vintage finds:

• Terrific styling on this 1970s Chicago Blackhawks jacket! But then, it’s a DeLong.

• Strange to see a white St. Louis Cardinals baseball helmet, of undetermined origin date. This was a Hot Wheels promo item.

• Vintage NFL logos adorn this 1967 framed Coca-Cola ad.

• Helmet Buggy Alert! This one’s for a 1970s NY Football Giants, with the GIANTS logo on the side.

• According to the listing this NBA watch belonged to a former NBA ref.

• Colts fans, Namath was right. But you can still commemorate that legendary Super Bowl with this cool pennant. [Love how the player on the pennant is clearly from an old college football illustration. — PL]

• I like the MLB patch on this 1970s-1980s Cubs jacket from an unknown maker.

• Love the classic look of the 1970s double-bar facemask on this L.A. Rams serving tray.

• Nice mixed assortment of 1970s NFL and MLB plaques from Kentucky Art. I had this very Bengals plaque, too.

• Weird to see the name under the number on this 1969 Sam Huff throwback.

• Anything Denny McLain-related is always pure gold, and that goes double for this McLain latex paint can. Autographed, no less! [Knowing Denny, the “latex” was probably watercolor and the autograph was forged by the clubhouse kid. —PL]

• Lone Star Staters, customize your car with this 1980s Houston Oilers hood ornament.

• • • • •

Baseball News: The Mets held a pregame ceremony yesterday to honor their top minor league players of the past season, all of whom wore No. 14 jerseys. I get it, it’s 2014, but come on — that number’s retired and doesn’t belong on a Mets jersey (from Todd Radom). … The padded cap worn by Padres reliever Alex Torres is going to the Hall of Fame. … “I tied the knot on Aug. 31 and supplied my groomsmen with a set of jerseys made by David ‘Frosty’ Frost, says Mike Colvin. “The premise was each man’s last name in Dodgers script with an 8 in front and 31 in the back, to be worn at the rehearsal dinner. This led to more than one ‘Why are they all wearing Mike Piazza jerseys?’ We also had a custom cake featuring my Giants and Heather’s Steelers, in memory of one of our first dates (and a bitter home loss).” … Jacob deGrom, he of the long tresses, was pitching for the Mets yesterday, so Mr. Met got long hair to match.

NFL News: See that Radisson logo on the Vikings interview backdrop? You won’t be seeing it anymore, at least for a while. … Yesterday I Ticker-linked to that awesome NY Giants letterhead from 1943. Here are some great photos of Harold Gutke, the player being offered a roster spot in the letter (big thanks to Alan Kreit). … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Robert Griffin III had to turn his “Know Jesus, Know Peace” T-shirt inside-out at Sunday’s postgame press conference because the tee wasn’t a Nike product. Douchebags (from Rob Daniel). … Here’s a really good view of how many of the Bears were wearing white tights with striped leg-warmers, not socks, on Sunday night (from Scott Thomas). … Latest evidence that jerseys make fans act like morons comes from yesterday’s column by Peter King. Key quote: “As veteran Panthers scribe David Newton pointed out, not many fans own [convicted domestic abuser Greg] Hardy jerseys anyway. One who does: Randy Samuelson of Charleston, S.C. ‘I thought about not wearing it,’ the 62-year-old Samuelson said. ‘But the home team is in white, and gotta support them no matter what'” (from Hugh McBride).

College Football News: Some Iowa fans don’t like the design of the school’s new live mascot (from Nick Pfeiffer). … “As a four-year letterman of Auburn University’s football program (06-09) and an avid supporter of AU’s athletic department in general, I periodically receive a letter entitled Auburn Athletics Confidential, which comes directly from the desk of Athletics Director Jay Jacobs and is aimed at keeping program stakeholders up to speed on certain aspects of the athletics department,” says Andrew McCain. “The most recent letter addressed Auburn’s uniforms: ‘I get asked when Auburn might come out in orange jerseys or pants,’ Jay writes. ‘The answer is not anytime soon. Why would we?'” … A trucking company called South East Carriers has a logo that looks a lot like the SEC logo (from Grady Harmon). … New memorial decal for the Coast Guard Academy. … This is interesting: UNC has a player from Canada and another from the Ivory Coast, and those players will now wear helmet decals of their native countries’ flags. Is that a college football first? … Don Schauf was looking at the Cal Stadium on Apple Maps and was surprised to find that the satellite image caught the field installation in progress.

Hockey News: The Capitals will unveil their Winter Classic jerseys on Sept. 23. … Flyers goalie Steve Mason’s new mask design features a zombie version of Al Capone (from Andrew Rader). … This article has some uni-numerical fun regarding Jesper Fast of the Rangers: “Fast was a little sheepish when told that he, Steven Stamkos, and John Tavares all wear No. 91 now in the National Hockey League. ‘Please don’t compare me to those guys,’ laughed the 22-year-old Swede. ‘The Rangers called me this summer and offered a bunch of different numbers because Lee Stempniak took (number) 12 (which Fast wore last season),’ Fast explained on Monday. ‘They were all high numbers, 40’s and higher, so I chose No. 91 because I was born in 1991 and it’s the only one that had any connection to me'” (from Chris Flinn). … Predators goalie Pekka Rinne’s new mask has a Gladiator theme (from Daniel Lavender).

College Hoops News: New uniforms for Drake. Man, when’s the last time you saw a team switch to that Lakers-style wishbone collar? … New unis for Arizona, too — blue and red.

Soccer News: FC Bacelona’s new third strip features two different shades of yellow (thanks, Phil). … New third kit for Manchester City (from George Chilvers).

Grab Bag: Crazy mix of NOB fonts in this photo of Massachusetts State Police trainees (from Brian Mazmanian). … You probably heard about the controversy involving Urban Outfitters’ “blood-stained” Kent State sweatshirt yesterday. Here’s the latest on that. … The new England rugby shirt features rubber grips along the chest area (to keep the ball from bouncing) in the shape of Victoria Cross, a British military medal (from Yusuke Toyoda). … Students at a New York City high school are protesting the school’s new dress code. … You like a mud game? Then you’ll love this. That’s from the 1963 Rugby League grand final between St. George and Western Suburbs. “Due to heavy rain the week before, the Sydney Cricket Ground was an absolute quagmire, and it became impossible to distinguish one team from another,” says Graham Clayton. … A Minneapolis woman want to turn the Metrodome’s roof into mittens (from Zach Wartes). … Wichita’s new indoor football team will go belly-up in a year or two, guaranteed will be called the Force.

• • • • •

FYI: Today I’m going to be part of a discussion panel for an NYU sports business class. We’ll be discussing the excellent “30 for 30” film Untucked, which of course is right up my alley. Between that and some errands that I have to run, I’ll be off the grid from about 11:30am until this evening, so everyone play nice while I’m out. See you tomorrow.

 

127 comments to In Which the Mets Find Yet Another Way to Be Confounding

  • Jamie | September 16, 2014 at 7:50 am |

    The Mets didn’t change their Facebook image to a white flag; that’s the default image for a Page when there is no image selected.

    • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 8:06 am |

      Really? Interesting! I’ll adjust the text accordingly.

    • Brendan Burke | September 16, 2014 at 9:33 am |

      But the “white flag” joke makes sense, considering that they’re the Mets.

  • Graham Clayton | September 16, 2014 at 7:53 am |

    For those of you who may be interested in what the actual colours of St George and Western Suburbs were under all that mud:

    The Western Suburbs Magpies team in the pre-match photo:

    http://resources3.ne...

    The St George Dragons team in the pre-match photo:

    http://jubileeavenue...

    • George Chilvers | September 16, 2014 at 11:51 am |

      I used to watch rugby league in those days, when I was but a little lad, and it was like this most of the time.

      Even live at the match (which of course was played out before our eyes in colour) it was impossible to tell one team from another. But on black and white TV, well ……….

  • CWac19 | September 16, 2014 at 8:00 am |

    Or could it be that the Citicorp silhouette is a much more recognizable form on the NYC skyline than the generic rectangle of the UN General Assembly? Hence, it’s appeared on other skyline based logos:

    http://content.sport...
    http://content.sport...

    That would be the innocent explanation.

    On the other hand, Columbia logo notwithstanding, the positioning within the Mets logo (to the extreme right) does seem slightly geographically inaccurate, especially if replacing the UN…

    • CWac19 | September 16, 2014 at 8:02 am |

      Also seems bizarre to make such a change at this point in the life of the franchise (and the building), especially considering the more nefarious possibilities for the substitution…. Oh, you Mets!

      • Paul Lee | September 16, 2014 at 9:48 pm |

        Regardless of its legitimacy, why would there be a need to change the trademark mark from TM to R (registered trademark)?

  • Todd | September 16, 2014 at 8:15 am |

    adidas should make some branded crutches for RG3.

  • A. Guy | September 16, 2014 at 8:19 am |

    “Latest evidence that jersey make fans act like morons comes …”

    Not sure you can lay this at the feed of the jersey. I think that any of the following are more accurate

    1) Latest evidence that fans act like morons
    2) Latest evidence that sports make fans act like morons
    3) Latest evidence some people are the worst

    • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 8:23 am |

      Point taken. But jerseys essentially serve as a megaphone that amplifies all of the above.

      In other words, this dude may be a jerk to begin with, but he wouldn’t be able to broadcast that fact by wearing the jersey of a convicted felon if, you know, that jersey hadn’t been available for sale in the first place.

      • A. Guy | September 16, 2014 at 8:46 am |

        Fair enough; though I suspect, with or without a jersey, Mr. “gotta support them no matter what” would find a way to broadcast that he’s a jackass.

      • Jim Vilk | September 16, 2014 at 9:44 am |

        If he has a mouth, a jerk will broadcast his jerkiness sooner or later, no matter what he’s wearing.

        Besides, the poor man had no choice.
        ‘I thought about not wearing it,’ the 62-year-old Samuelson said. ‘But the home team is in white, and gotta support them no matter what’”
        It’s not as if he were living in a free country…wait a minute…

      • Jim Vilk | September 16, 2014 at 10:16 am |

        And I wouldn’t be able to read bad news if the eyeglass industrial complex hadn’t made these darn reading glasses available for sale.

        Jerseys, and their sellers, are not to blame. Jerseys don’t make people jerks, hoodies don’t make people convenience store robbers, sleeveless men’s undershirts don’t contribute to domestic violence and pinstriped suits don’t make people mobsters.

        Now would I have worn it? No. But I’m sure the jersey was made and sold before any of this came to light.

  • Joseph Gerard | September 16, 2014 at 8:32 am |

    The original MNF theme is catchy, even if the second theme became iconic. Granted, ESPN obviously has the corporate ties to keep the second theme of MNF going (as well as claim the lineage, even though NBC doesn’t reciprocate it with Sunday Night Football), but it would’ve been nice if they had kept the last theme they used Sunday Night Football for MNF.

    As for CBS’s classic theme? They used a variation of that as late as 2002, before switching to their current theme in 2003. To be honest, I like CBS’s current theme a lot better. IDK, I guess I associate the theme being concurrent with the Steelers return to greatness during the 2000’s–not to discount the 90’s, but we didn’t win a Super Bowl during that time thanks to Neil O’Donnell while we did with CBS’s current theme.

    • Anthony | September 16, 2014 at 8:56 am |

      It’s ok. I like telling people that the current SNF theme is a Joan Jett song. That turns heads.

      • DenverGregg | September 16, 2014 at 9:04 am |

        . . . and lots of fans now hate themselves for loving the NFL given all the recent shenanigans.

    • ScottyM | September 16, 2014 at 9:19 am |

      After watching that MNF intro, wouldn’t it be fun for the next “vintage/retro” game for the broadcast to play along? Imagine that intro with the graphics all game being vintage.

      How fun would that be? (only once in very long while, obviously)

    • Phil Hecken | September 16, 2014 at 9:25 am |

      “…we didn’t win a Super Bowl during that time thanks to Neil O’Donnell while we did with CBS’s current theme.”

      ~~~

      What position did you play?

      • Jim Vilk | September 16, 2014 at 10:20 am |

        You and your teammates won those super bowls with the ABC and NBC themes, for the record.

    • Rob S | September 16, 2014 at 9:27 am |

      Personally, I miss the mid-90s ESPN themes for what was then Game Day and Prime Time along with Sunday Night Football (the locker room opening).

      • timmy b | September 16, 2014 at 11:43 am |

        Folks, NO football theme compares to CBS’s “Confidence” that was used to open their game coverage from at least (and probably sooner) 1965 through 1973. NONE. NOT EVER. Actually, the only thing that comes close in all of North American televised sport are as Brinke posted, ABC’s original MNF theme and the original score of Dolores Claiman’s Hockey Night in Canada theme.

        • mild bill | September 16, 2014 at 12:27 pm |

          Totally agree with you about the CBS football theme. As a kid, that theme got me so amped that I usually grabbed a football and heading outside to start hurdling hedges.

  • Randy | September 16, 2014 at 8:38 am |

    I love the subtle change to the Mets logo. Very interesting find.

  • D | September 16, 2014 at 8:46 am |

    Noted that one image is a registered trademark, and the older not. Probably just a function of the respective ages of the images, but interesting nonetheless.

    • D | September 16, 2014 at 8:54 am |

      Not that interesting. The “old” logo shows up as registered on the website. Google still has the Citi building logo, however.

      • MEANS | September 16, 2014 at 9:25 am |

        The mlb’s style guides always show a TM on all logos, this is just to show where the TM or ® go. There is a list which gives each marks it’s designation (TM or ®), which in turn creates a ton of marks out in the market with inconsistencies.

        • Paul Lee | September 16, 2014 at 9:49 pm |

          Thank you.

  • Dumb Guy | September 16, 2014 at 8:47 am |

    Not being a New Yorker, nor having ever visited, nor having much/any knowledge of the actual skyline….. Is the skyline depicted in the Mets logo even close to accurate? Or is it just a bunch of buildings? Or is it some recognizable buildings in any particular order? Thanks for the education.

    Wonder why they didn’t update it to include the WTC Towers (back when they were built in the 70’s).

    • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 8:57 am |

      Explanation/description of the logo skyline can be found here (scroll down to “November 16, 1961”):
      http://newyork.mets....

      • Rob S | September 16, 2014 at 11:12 am |

        I’m curious as to the source of the Mets’ assertion that blue and orange are the colors of New York State, since I haven’t been able to find any other such mention. I am, of course, aware of the colors’ connection to the City and some of the nearby counties.

        • Dumb Guy | September 16, 2014 at 11:25 am |

          In Paul’s link above it notes:

          ” The Mets’ colors are Dodger blue and Giant orange, symbolic of the return of National League baseball to New York after the Dodgers and Giants moved to California. Blue and Orange are also the official colors of New York State. “

        • Rob S | September 16, 2014 at 11:42 am |

          That’s the quote to which I was referring. It’s on the Mets’ website, which is why I said it’s the Mets’ assertion that the State of New York’s colors are (or were as of 1961) blue and orange. It’s that statement that I haven’t been able to verify through another online source.

          For example, Wikipedia’s List of State Colors shows blue and gold as New York State’s colors (although, it’s A) Wikipedia, and B) an incomplete list missing several states), while Netstate.com indicates that there are no “official” colors for New York State.

        • Rob S | September 16, 2014 at 11:43 am |

          Here’s the Netstate link, which I apparently derped.

        • timmy b | September 16, 2014 at 11:46 am |

          Rob S:
          “I’m curious as to the source of the Mets’ assertion that blue and orange are the colors of New York State, since I haven’t been able to find any other such mention. I am, of course, aware of the colors’ connection to the City and some of the nearby counties.”

          I always thought it was sorta based on the colors of New York’s license plates, which usually have some various shades of blue and orange on them.

        • scottrj | September 16, 2014 at 12:46 pm |

          Problem with that theory is that the color blue didn’t begin to appear on NY license plates until 4-5 years AFTER the logo was adopted:
          http://www.worldlice...

  • Scott P | September 16, 2014 at 8:55 am |

    I love that old CBS NFL Today theme. It’s aabsolutely hilarious how they showcase almost nothing but dirty defensive plays. Facemasks, headhunting, cleats on the back of a downed player…. It’s all there!

    • Dumb Guy | September 16, 2014 at 9:20 am |

      Ha! Yep. You beat me to it!

      • Scott P. | September 16, 2014 at 9:41 am |

        They even have one of the most infamous dirty plays in football history, Joe Turkey Jones piledriving Terry Bradshaw!

    • The Jeff | September 16, 2014 at 9:21 am |

      Indeed. It’s amazing how many great players of the past would be banned from the league today.

      • Dumb Guy | September 16, 2014 at 10:30 am |

        Chris (The Hangman) Hanburger of the ‘Skins. Notorious clotheliner (though I never really noticed as a kid).

        http://www.youtube.c...

      • Jim Vilk | September 16, 2014 at 11:24 am |

        …and should have been banned back then.

        Like Mr. Dumb Guy, I glossed over a lot of stuff as a kid, too. But I remember finding that CBS intro a bit unsettling. It was so unlike the rest of the show.

  • Kek | September 16, 2014 at 8:59 am |

    That MNF clip is all well and good, but if it ain’t Superstar Heavy Action, it’s not really MNF to me

  • w_c_hughes | September 16, 2014 at 9:08 am |

    Maybe the white flag is the Mets giving up on their season.

  • The Rick | September 16, 2014 at 9:08 am |

    Not sure what to say about this…. http://mashable.com/...

    • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 9:12 am |

      Was in yesterday’s Ticker. And Sunday’s Ticker. And my Twitter feed…..

      • The Rick | September 16, 2014 at 9:18 am |

        sorry. my bad…

  • B | September 16, 2014 at 9:31 am |

    Been wanting to say this for a bit: ‘Kit’ and ‘Strip’ are British English terms. That’s all they are. They are not soccer terms. (And neither is ‘nil’, while we’re at it.) The language as used by American writers on an American website shouldn’t change because we’re suddenly talking about soccer. U.S. Soccer celebrated its 100th anniversary last year. It’s an American sport, too. Using ‘uniform’ and ‘jersey’ is fine and 100% accurate. Thanks. Love the site.

    • terriblehuman | September 16, 2014 at 9:49 am |

      But specific to this post, George lives on the other side of the pond, so he’s more than entitled to use “kit”.

      The other part of it is that soccer as consumed in the States (at least by English-speaking white people) has an undeniably Anglophilic bent to it. Your typical soccer fan follows the Premier League (instead of or in addition to MLS), watch Sky Sports feeds packaged for NBC Sports with British announcers and studio hosts, read about the sport on The Guardian website, listen to the Men in Blazers podcast and spend their weekend mornings at British or Irish pubs that serve English breakfast. It’s hard to separate soccer in America and British culture.

      I agree, “uniform” and “jersey” are fine, but “kit”, “pitch” and “you bloody wanker” are fine as well.

      • George Chilvers | September 16, 2014 at 11:45 am |

        I think I’m also entitled to use the word “kit” about an English team.

        And the last para of terriblehuman’s reply is completely correct. The last quote passes my lips regularly, not so much at football now my 3-year-old grandson comes along, but regularly when I’m driving :)

    • TBone | September 16, 2014 at 11:35 am |

      Is it really that much different than referring to the top part of a hockey uniform as a sweater?

      I know, that’s old Uni Watch ground, but it’s still a great discussion.

    • timmy b | September 16, 2014 at 11:48 am |

      With you all the way, B.

  • Brendan Burke | September 16, 2014 at 9:36 am |

    Re: Sam Huff jersey

    Obviously it wasn’t worn on the field (NFL didn’t use NOBs at the time) but that’s the first time I’ve seen FNOB below the number.

  • mmwatkin | September 16, 2014 at 9:40 am |

    I wouldn’t at all be surprised if someone made the change to reflect the Citigroup building because of the corporate affiliation. If people associate the building with Citigroup, then it makes sense in some context.

    In a vacuum, I don’t have a problem with the change. Mostly because they replaced a generic rectangle building with something that is instantly recognized by residents of New York. Even in today’s entry, the picture was linked for those who are not New Yorkers. If the original description of the logo did not indicate that the rectangle building was the UN building, would anyone know?

    So while it may be corporate douchebaggery (debatable), it also does make the logo a little more “New York”

    • terriblehuman | September 16, 2014 at 9:54 am |

      As a recovering New Yorker, I’m not sure if most residents would recognize the Citicorp building. The thing about New Yorkers is that they don’t look up. People recognize ESB and the Chrysler Building because they’re so damn iconic, but after those two and the old Twin Towers and the new Freedom Tower, and maybe the Woolworth Building, there’s a huge dropoff in recognition. And the Citicorp building kinda gets lost in the forest of Midtown skyscrapers.

      On the other hand, on first glance, I thought it was an especially angular rendering of the Flatiron Building (which is way more “New York” than Citicorp).

      • mike 2 | September 16, 2014 at 11:54 am |

        I’m not a New Yorker but I think of that building as iconic of the New York skyline. This is in large part because of its interesting design at ground level, unique roofline, and absolutely FASCINATING history

        http://99percentinvi...

  • Todd | September 16, 2014 at 9:54 am |

    really dig those socks from American Trench in the ad in the upper right of the screen, but I can’t justify spending that much moula on socks. Oh well.

    • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 9:58 am |

      FWIW: They’re excellent, excellent socks. Durable, attractive, made in USA, they stay up, etc. I’m wearing a pair right now! Not saying this for any other reason except that I believe in the product — seriously.

      Are they inexpensive? No. But are they a good value? I’d say so, yes.

  • Bobby LANE | September 16, 2014 at 10:12 am |

    That is the same Delong Blackhawks jacket Bill Murray wore the Movie MEATBALLS..

    • BrianC | September 16, 2014 at 5:25 pm |

      So you’re guy who saw that movie!

  • tedkerwin | September 16, 2014 at 10:20 am |

    Interesting that Harold Gutke died after battling Alzhiemers in 1999. More anecdotal evidence about possible concussions and brain trauma long term.

    • Perry | September 16, 2014 at 10:56 am |

      I know it’s hard, we’ve evolved for pattern seeking, but people really need to resist that kind of thinking. Plenty of Alzheimer’s victims (the majority, I’m sure) never played football, and plenty of football players don’t get Alzheimer’s. Not saying there isn’t a connection between the two, just saying that no individual case is evidence of anything.

  • HHH | September 16, 2014 at 10:21 am |

    “…the Brewers’ “M” logo is obviously based on the Miller Beer script.”

    Not so obvious. I looked them both up and they are both very distinctive. The only similarity is the curly parts in the top left:

    http://www.sportslog...

    http://en.wikipedia....

    They are two completely different fonts. Now, the funny thing is I always thought the Brewers “M” logo looked straight off a beer label too but I think that has more to do with the grains of wheat or barley that are beneath the M. Or perhaps we are both thinking of a different brand of beer? Can someone who knows a lot about beer logos help us out here?

    • Steve Naismith | September 16, 2014 at 12:38 pm |

      I was wondering the same thing. The Brewers M doesn’t look at all similar to the M from Miller’s logo, so I don’t get Paul’s comment. I must be missing something.

    • neeko | September 16, 2014 at 1:21 pm |

      agreed – calling it “obviously based on” is a huge stretch

    • DC | September 16, 2014 at 2:50 pm |

      Glad I’m not the only one confused by this comment. I recall Paul saying in the past, but kept forgetting to ask about it. The structure of the M’s is totally different. You don’t need to be a typography expert to see that. Sure there’s a wheat shaft when you view both in full, but that’t because the team nickname is Brewers and the other referenced company is a brewery. Guess I would understand the comment slightly more if the team were called the Zebras or something totally non beer related.

  • Johnny O | September 16, 2014 at 10:28 am |

    It will be interesting to see if the University of Minnesota, which had/has a problem with the “Redskins” name, will have a problem with Adrian Peterson playing there.

    • Dumb Guy | September 16, 2014 at 10:33 am |

      Please do not beat your Injun squaw or papooses! (papeese??)

    • terriblehuman | September 16, 2014 at 11:08 am |

      FWIW, U of M doesn’t have a problem with the ‘Skins playing on campus. They just don’t want to display the name.

    • Phil Hecken | September 16, 2014 at 11:30 am |

      “It will be interesting to see if the University of Minnesota, which had/has a problem with the “Redskins” name, will have a problem with Adrian Peterson playing there.”

      ~~~

      Putting aside the moral repugnancy equivalency aspect, how are these two even remotely connected? One involves an accused (and now indicted) individual, whose case will be determined by a court of law (or settled out of court), and the other involves the (in some many eyes) use a racial slur for an NFL team name.

      As TH said above, it’s not the team or even the city with which UofM has a problem, it’s the use of the name/term.

      Not sure how that relates to the status of a member of the Vikings who is not, as of this moment, legally guilty of any crime.

      • Johnny O | September 16, 2014 at 1:06 pm |

        So Peterson hit his 4 year old son with a branch after stuffing the leaves down his mouth, yet the Vikings want to gather more info… Let that sink in.

        Listen, the two aren’t connected at all. I get that. My point is to say that outrage for certain things doesn’t match the outrage for other (seemingly more grotesque) things.

        • terriblehuman | September 16, 2014 at 1:13 pm |

          I think you’re mischaracterizing UofM’s objections here (and your use of the word “outrage” is telling). They’re happy to let the ‘Skins play in their stadium – they’re just asking not to use the name as long as they’re on campus (a more accurate, if a little perverted, equivalence would be if they asked Peterson not to abuse children on university grounds, or if the school itself refused to discipline Peterson’s children).

          I suppose it would be noble if they took some stance against the Vikings for their cynical handling of the Peterson case. But it sure seems like you’re trying to invalidate an opinion because (like another commenter yesterday), there’s no equal display of opposition about another unrelated issue.

        • Phil Hecken | September 16, 2014 at 3:55 pm |

          Johnny,

          If you think I’m not upset about the Peterson beatings, I am and I think it’s awful. It’s just that 98.6% of the Peterson thing isn’t germane to Uni Watch, while the ‘skins logo/name ARE. That’s why it may seem to be getting much more coverage.

          But, for example, when a reader creates a jersey like this (Peterson jersey modified with the Child Abuse hotline number), I will GLADLY (as I did on Sunday) feature it. Because that is uni-related.

          Is it horrible what he does to his kids? Absolutely. Is it germane to UW? No.

          But don’t try to equate any lack of outrage on UW (or Paul’s) part over this as a) somehow not caring, or b) not giving equal coverage to this when we have ‘skins watch — because for purposes of this board, they’re not equivalent.

          (You know I love ya Johnny — not trying to bust chops)…

        • Graf Zeppelin | September 16, 2014 at 5:08 pm |

          “[O]utrage for certain things doesn’t match the outrage for other (seemingly more grotesque) things” is just about the lamest argument anyone could make about anything.

  • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 10:31 am |

    Todd Radom has reimagined the Mets’ logo to reflect a more contemporary skyline:
    http://toddradom.com...

    • terriblehuman | September 16, 2014 at 10:55 am |

      The High Line is a nice touch. But holy crap, that’s a lot of new buildings.

  • FormerDirtDart | September 16, 2014 at 10:45 am |

    Applied a little deductive reasoning to the whole “Mets logo” incident.

    Logo was uploaded in Nov. 2013 right? This would make some sense, as the team would be changing over from using it’s 2013 All-Star Game logo.
    And, if you think about it, they also used an alternate logo in 2012. The 50th Anniversary logo.

    This time frame also includes the Mets pulling back on the usage of the blackened version of their primary logo, and the introduction of usage of the Mr. Met patch on alternate game uniforms.
    So, it could be the team had marketing look at some alternate logos to begin using at the end of the 50th/ASG logo period.
    The CitiCorp building was one of those, likely not selected, as the team went with the standard logo on standard jerseys (pins, whites, greys), and Mr Met on alternates (blues, camo, BP).
    The “Citi” logo was sitting in a file of images, and some lackey gets told “change social media logos back to regular ball logo” and they see “ball logo” and use it. Not realizing it’s “Citi” version.

  • James Gregg | September 16, 2014 at 10:49 am |

    A question, is the Mets orange now that new orange or is that too an adaptation for social media? The new logo orange looks closer to Tennessee orange while the old logo is more like Florida’s blue and orange.

    On a rugby note, and I don’t have a picture, Richard Wigglesworth has his NOB shortened to Wigg’Worth

  • jrod3737 | September 16, 2014 at 10:53 am |

    I guess I never noticed that the Brewers M is in the script of the Miller M. Now I can’t unsee it. Thanks, Uniwatch.

    • Steve Naismith | September 16, 2014 at 12:39 pm |

      Can you help us out? The two M’s are very different. Am I not looking at the right M?

  • BvK1126 | September 16, 2014 at 11:04 am |

    I find it amusing that some Iowa fans are talking about how “stupid” they think the new Herky the Hawk mascot looks. It looks almost identical to the mascot the university has been using for basketball and just about every other non-football sport for years. I’ve never heard anyone say they though that version of the mascot looked stupid. I guess, in this context, “stupid” means “I don’t like change.”

    • BvK1126 | September 16, 2014 at 11:36 am |

      Interesting! The new Herky has a removable helmet as part of its ensemble for football games, which has led one Iowa commentator to make a rather unflattering comparison.

    • BvK1126 | September 16, 2014 at 12:08 pm |

      …And since I’m a sucker for old photos, I found a couple of interesting tidbits while looking for photos of the various Herky mascots. This gallery from the Des Moines Register’s Hawk Central website contains a great old photo of Herky from 1967. And Wikipedia’s entry for Herky contains an image of the mascot costume from the 1950s. Okay, I’m done now. Moving away from Herky and on with the rest of my day…

  • Derek | September 16, 2014 at 11:09 am |

    Disregarding the “sponsorship” aspect of it, the change to the City building would be a good one I think since it’s more instantly recognizable landmark than a plain rectangle. I never knew the official one is supposed to be the UN building, but I recognized the Citi building right away(and I’m not from NY).

    • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 11:14 am |

      Disregarding the “sponsorship” aspect of it, the change to the City building would be a good one I think since it’s more instantly recognizable landmark than a plain rectangle.

      Agreed. The problem is the context.

    • CWac19 | September 16, 2014 at 12:06 pm |

      Exactly. And not the first time a NY team has used that building in its skyline-based logo. See my comment at the top of the string. At various points, St. John’s and Columbia have both used the Citigroup building prominently in their logos. Alas, as Paul notes, it’s all about the context of the change.

    • Ferdinand Cesarano | September 16, 2014 at 2:54 pm |

      Right, it’s the idea of a sponsored change that would be bad, not the look of the result. Similarly, the re-naming of the Pacific St. subway station to Barclays Center is bad only because it is sponsored; without the sponsorship factor, that’s actually a good change, considering that we have stations quite properly named for Yankee Stadium, for the Museum of Natural History, and for the Brooklyn Botanic Garden.

      Still, given that that building isn’t realy a Citicorp property anymore, and considering the backdoor manner in which this change was made, it might ultimately not be a sponsored thing; it might be the act of one person motivated purely by aesthetics.

      Here’s another angle: if someone *were* going to incorporate something from Citicorp into the Mets’ logo, one would think that the natural thing would be the Citicorp Building in Queens, which is the tallest building in New York City outside of Manhattan. It also has a very distinctive shape. Here’s a shot of mine:

      https://www.facebook...

      And here is a picture that I took of the building seen beneath the Queensboro Bridge, a shot bringing together two Queens archetectural landmarks:

      https://www.facebook...

      (Note: anyone can see those photos, not just people with Facebook accounts.)

  • andrew | September 16, 2014 at 11:37 am |

    re: the Mass State Police Academy item from the grab bag; in case anyone was curious about the reason for the font disparity, the student officers (and their respective departments) are responsible for providing the gray PT gear, matching some provided guidelines. later in their training they’ll be issued nice uniform blue PT gear by the academy.

  • TBone | September 16, 2014 at 11:47 am |

    Posts like today are reasons why I love Uni Watch. The change in the Mets’ logo is a beautiful little detail that I would have missed otherwise. Fantastic job, Paul!

    • TBone | September 16, 2014 at 11:59 am |

      Oh, and the thing with the Radisson sponsorship is very interesting as well. These are the kind of situations that corporations can get into when they do things like sponsor the wall behind a press conference of a sports team. You can’t guarantee that the members of that sports team will avoid the negative spotlight.

  • Joe | September 16, 2014 at 12:04 pm |

    That Huff is as fake as it gets! Names weren’t on Skins jerseys until 1970, that is supposed to be a 1969. Also M&N never made size 58.

    • Brendan Burke | September 16, 2014 at 12:37 pm |

      Huff retired after ’69, making this even weirder.

  • mike 2 | September 16, 2014 at 12:06 pm |

    I had a quick look around in the USPTO database to see if there had been any registrations of the “modified” logo. I didn’t find any. The database is here:

    I did find a logo for an interesting Mets logo I hadn’t seen before. The trademark serial number is 74374026, there isn’t a way to link into the database so I can’t link to the registration. It was issued in 1994 and cancelled in 2004.

    http://i63.photobuck...

    • Graf Zeppelin | September 16, 2014 at 5:12 pm |

      I think that logo was used on giveaways and random merch in the mid-’90s. Note the “M” in “Mets” is off, resembling the “swoosh” version of the wordmark (but without the “swoosh” here).

  • BvK1126 | September 16, 2014 at 12:20 pm |

    This coffee table book of vintage tabletop football games looks like it could be interesting to several people in the Uni Watch community:

    http://www.retrofoot...

  • HMS | September 16, 2014 at 12:59 pm |

    Those white Cardinals batting helmets were sold (at least) into the early ’90s. My friends and I had matching ones as kids that were missing the Hot Wheels logo on the back. Otherwise, they looked identical to the one on eBay and came in clear plastic bags with the MLB logo. My mom bought a bunch of them on clearance at a St. Louis toy store around 1991.

  • Mike | September 16, 2014 at 1:31 pm |

    WaPo story about the “W” on the mound… http://www.washingto...

    • Dumb Guy | September 16, 2014 at 2:48 pm |

      Whenever I see “Curly W” it takes me a minute to stop think WHO Curly W is.

      • loserem | September 16, 2014 at 4:41 pm |

        nyuck nyuck

  • BvK1126 | September 16, 2014 at 2:48 pm |

    ESPN.com is using an odd illustration to promote its preview of this Sunday’s upcoming Seahawks/Broncos game. It’s on ESPN’s front page right now. Here’s the link for those who don’t feel like opening a a second browser window and typing letters into the Google search bar:

    http://espn.go.com/

    And here’s a screen grab in case it disappears:

    http://i1300.photobu...

    The shade of blue used to depict Seattle’s uniforms sure looks a lot like the Reebok design the team wore from 2002 to 2011 rather than the darker shade of blue used for their Nike-designed uniforms.

  • Kevin Zdancewicz | September 16, 2014 at 2:52 pm |

    Wouldn’t that just be the Iowa mascot? Or the Iowa mascot costume?

    This seems more like a live mascot: http://theeastvision...

  • Padday | September 16, 2014 at 3:01 pm |

    Anybody else think the referee kits in the Champions League games on right now are, well, awful?

    • DJ | September 16, 2014 at 3:14 pm |

      Awful? Maybe too strong a word. Certainly unusual.

      For those not watching, they’re dark charcoal/black shirts, silver gray shorts and socks.

      • DJ | September 16, 2014 at 3:16 pm |

        At the Liverpool-Ludogorets match, the referees are wearing charcoal/black socks.

    • George Chilvers | September 16, 2014 at 9:18 pm |

      Really really odd

  • Mick | September 16, 2014 at 3:04 pm |

    Wanna thank Paul for featuring my rehearsal dinner photos in the ticker today. What wasn’t mentioned was that while David ‘Frosty’ Frost was busy secretly making 8 jerseys for my groomsmen, my brother and best man Stephen had him secretly making me one for my August 4th Bachelor Party! (Phil featured the photos that week) We’ve been getting custom made jerseys from Frosty for over five years now and can’t recommend him enough! One of the many fine folks I’ve found here on Uni-Watch

    • Kevin Zdancewicz | September 16, 2014 at 3:22 pm |

      It looks like your jersey is cream-colored to set you apart from the groomsmen, no? A nice touch!

    • Mick | September 16, 2014 at 6:01 pm |

      YES!!! That was Frosty’s idea. Nice pickup. Not pictured is my brother and Best Man Stephen whose wife Kristen gave birth at 5:30 THAT NIGHT. He still made it for the second half of the dinner and didn’t miss the wedding!

  • Rob S | September 16, 2014 at 3:23 pm |

    Red Wings players are already wearing their training camp jerseys at public events.

    And sure enough, someone already asked if they’re changing the NOBs permanently.

    • Rob S | September 16, 2014 at 3:51 pm |

      FYI, it’s a signing at CS Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor – which explains the maize and blue balloons, since it’s part of the University of Michigan Health System.

  • Bryan | September 16, 2014 at 3:30 pm |

    As someone who works with logos at times, I could see the Mets logo as an honest mix-up. I don’t know HOW MANY logos I have that have minute changes in them that were used for various things at various times.

  • Ryan M | September 16, 2014 at 3:37 pm |

    Are there any other pro teams here in the US that have adopted something signifying the owner or corporate partner into their logo or wordmark? You mentioned the Brewers’ “M;” the only other one I can think of are the so-obvious-it-hurts New York Red Bulls. I think it’s a stretch to say the Rockies’ & Coors’ use of a mountain in their logos constitutes such corporate douchebaggery.

  • David | September 16, 2014 at 3:43 pm |

    The Braves rolled out the name of the new stadium today.
    http://www.ajc.com/n...
    SunTrust Park is what they will call it. For me and my house we will call it White Flight Field.

  • Matt | September 16, 2014 at 3:50 pm |

    I guess I don’t understand why businesses like Nike, Gatorade, etc. are called douchebags for making sure they get what they pay for. If I’m Gatorade and the only time these players are seen with my product are when they are on the podium, I would damn well make sure that only my product is on the podium.

    • BvK1126 | September 16, 2014 at 4:02 pm |

      But Nike (or, rather, league officials acting as Nike’s proxies) didn’t make RGIII wear a Nike shirt. They just made him turn his non-Nike shirt inside out so that the message on it didn’t show. That doesn’t do anything to “make sure your product is on the podium.”

      • andyharry | September 16, 2014 at 4:15 pm |

        The funny part is that the typography and layout of RG3’s shirt makes it look like a Nike shirt, so much so that I question whether any layman would have noticed it wasn’t. At first glance, I would have assumed it was a Nike shirt.

    • Ryan M | September 16, 2014 at 4:12 pm |

      What makes them douchebags is the that they think the expenditure of such large sums on advertising, sponsorships, and partnerships entitles them to control every minute detail they can. And maybe that’s written in the contracts, so shame on the teams/athletes for giving in to such ridiculousness as well.

    • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 4:16 pm |

      Your comment assumes that “what they paid for” is something that should have been available for sale to begin with.

      In most of these cases, what’s being sold (the right plaster your logo on every single thing, the right to tell people what bottle to drink out of, etc.) is repugnant. That’s why it’s douchebaggery.

  • BrianC | September 16, 2014 at 5:31 pm |

    Okay, I’m switching into geezer mode. Whenever one of these articles about school dress codes comes up, and someone supports it or even (GASP!) suggests school uniforms there are always those who yowl against it because it will irreparably damage their delicate little psyches if you tell little Susie she can’t dress like a crack whore or tell Timmy he has to take off his hat in class. And if they wear school uniforms you’ll turn them into mind numbed robots incapable of independent thought. How fragile kids have come in a couple of generations; when I went to Catholic school the uniform regs were a notch below the Marine Corps, somehow some of us were able to function.

    Now get off my lawn! And pull up your pants and put your hat on straight!

  • Clint W | September 16, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
    • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 8:48 pm |

      I spoke with Richard Sandomir, who wrote that piece, earlier today. He was almost giddy about it — something about the story really amused him.

  • Paul Lukas | September 16, 2014 at 9:47 pm |

    Don’t look now, but Derek Jeter’s average has slipped under .250.

    Not exactly a finishing kick.

    • Phil Hecken | September 16, 2014 at 10:25 pm |

      Who’s this Derek Jeter of which you speak?

      Oh. Right.

      But, hey, the Rays did gift him a very cool Zim jersey

  • luca | September 17, 2014 at 12:07 pm |

    is this really that big of a deal? baseball worries too much about ‘history’ and ‘tradiation’. who cares man.

    • luca | September 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm |

      tradition*

    • Paul Lukas | September 17, 2014 at 12:41 pm |

      You come to a site devoted to uniforms and logos and then wonder why we’re making a “big deal” out of a change to a logo. Clever.

      For your next trick, go to a food website and ask them why they’re making a “big deal” out of various cuts of steak and different kinds of chocolate.