- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Posts
- 2,031
- Likes
- 279
W&M Mascot to be unveiled Tuesday4/6
- Thread starter Rambunctious
- Start date
BaNgMyPrOgRaM
Elite Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Posts
- 26,344
- Likes
- 18,221
Rambunctious said:
BigE
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Posts
- 12,001
- Likes
- 13,197
Meet the Griffin.
William & Mary's Griffin is a mythical creature with the body of a lion and the head of an eagle. The coat of arms of King William and Queen Mary was adorned with lions, and the lion's body of our mascot evokes our historic royal founding and early history. The eagle's head of the Griffin suggests the national symbol of the United States and represents the presidents, leaders, and productive citizens whom William & Mary has trained for centuries.
http://www.wm.edu/about/mascot/about/index.php
but I thought the Grffin Tribe was:
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Posts
- 13,635
- Likes
- 20,720
Tony Shaver does kind of look like Merv Griffin with a 'stash
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Posts
- 6,354
- Likes
- 4,385
BigE said:
This thing is horrible. First off at a glance it looks like a naked guy wearing a feather jacket and bird mask.
Second, imagine if they change the name to the William and Mary Griffins. I worked with a guy once named Will Griffin, wonder if he could get them to cut a check.
They should've gone with the Asparagus, or the Wrens, or the Pugs.
BaNgMyPrOgRaM
Elite Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Posts
- 26,344
- Likes
- 18,221
How creative and individual, Go Indians.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2009
- Posts
- 1,876
- Likes
- 132
BigE said:DCDuck said:
This guy looks pretty bad ass too, relatively speaking of course...
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2009
- Posts
- 1,876
- Likes
- 132
Or Busch Garden's awesome roller coaster!
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Posts
- 133
- Likes
- 15
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Posts
- 5,107
- Likes
- 2,378
I take my sports logos kinda seriously (maybe it's the ComArts major in me?) Here are my gripes with this logo articulated, which I doubt anyone except Art will read start to finsh:
Seriously, that has to be the worst griffin logo I have ever seen. Green rarely works when talking about colorization on animals (Binghamton is one of the few that does; more often than not the critter ends up like he's radioactive, like Baylor used to.)
(Baylor had a history of bad logo choices for its color scheme, using the "Lemonade Bear" for 16 years before switching to "Radiation Bear". Now they use "Contact Lens Bear". They managed to achieve depth and incorporate the school's colors in the scheme without making the bear look like a Ringling Brothers cast-off.)
Back to W&M.
The colors look flat, and that's probably because the four-color print scheme they used included tan for his lower body and "dark green" to differentiate between outline and the "fill-in" green. "Tribe" seems tacked onto the bottom as an afterthought; the yellow outline is a bad choice especially in the places where it crosses over the tan. The heavy emphasis of line around the legs creates a depth-of-field issue with the type in front of it, as well as draws attention away from the mascot's head and raised finger (both of which would have been far stronger design choices to emphasize. The way it is composed now just screams "Hey look! I don't have any pants on!"
The flatness also kills the "wing" element. Making the wing two separate colors was a poor choice, especially when the green lines are so similar to the green of the body. The curve of the wing isn't visible, so it reads more like a cape, or if you really stretch your imagination, the most ridiculous patch of armpit hair (feathers?) in recorded history.
W&M should have taken a page from the American Hockey League's Grand Rapids Griffins when coming up with their design. The wing is clearly emphasized as the point of interest, and line weight consistently establishes a visual hierarchy. The details don't get lost in the lines because the color scheme was clearly established from the beginning to avoid conflict of hue and value, and the type is cleanly and seamlessly integrated into the image.
They could have also done something like what Loyola Marymount did. LMU's established school colors were tougher to work with (maroon and navy are both relatively low-saturation, low value colors) but they worked their way around the issue and created a dynamic logo that uses line weight efficiently and effectively to create depth of field. The type is clearly a part of the overall design from the beginning.
W&M's color scheme was pretty easy to work with (one dark value - green, paired with one light value - gold) but somehow they managed to botch their logo to the point where I just shake my head and wonder why they don't just stick to the stylized type.
So I am calling a "fail" on W&M's new griffin logo. Not quite an epic fail (That dubious distinction is reserved for logos that truly give me cancer of the soul, like the QMJHL's Lewistown Maineiacs or the ECHL's Grrreenville Grrrowl), but a fail nonetheless.
Seriously, that has to be the worst griffin logo I have ever seen. Green rarely works when talking about colorization on animals (Binghamton is one of the few that does; more often than not the critter ends up like he's radioactive, like Baylor used to.)
(Baylor had a history of bad logo choices for its color scheme, using the "Lemonade Bear" for 16 years before switching to "Radiation Bear". Now they use "Contact Lens Bear". They managed to achieve depth and incorporate the school's colors in the scheme without making the bear look like a Ringling Brothers cast-off.)
Back to W&M.
The colors look flat, and that's probably because the four-color print scheme they used included tan for his lower body and "dark green" to differentiate between outline and the "fill-in" green. "Tribe" seems tacked onto the bottom as an afterthought; the yellow outline is a bad choice especially in the places where it crosses over the tan. The heavy emphasis of line around the legs creates a depth-of-field issue with the type in front of it, as well as draws attention away from the mascot's head and raised finger (both of which would have been far stronger design choices to emphasize. The way it is composed now just screams "Hey look! I don't have any pants on!"
The flatness also kills the "wing" element. Making the wing two separate colors was a poor choice, especially when the green lines are so similar to the green of the body. The curve of the wing isn't visible, so it reads more like a cape, or if you really stretch your imagination, the most ridiculous patch of armpit hair (feathers?) in recorded history.
W&M should have taken a page from the American Hockey League's Grand Rapids Griffins when coming up with their design. The wing is clearly emphasized as the point of interest, and line weight consistently establishes a visual hierarchy. The details don't get lost in the lines because the color scheme was clearly established from the beginning to avoid conflict of hue and value, and the type is cleanly and seamlessly integrated into the image.
They could have also done something like what Loyola Marymount did. LMU's established school colors were tougher to work with (maroon and navy are both relatively low-saturation, low value colors) but they worked their way around the issue and created a dynamic logo that uses line weight efficiently and effectively to create depth of field. The type is clearly a part of the overall design from the beginning.
W&M's color scheme was pretty easy to work with (one dark value - green, paired with one light value - gold) but somehow they managed to botch their logo to the point where I just shake my head and wonder why they don't just stick to the stylized type.
So I am calling a "fail" on W&M's new griffin logo. Not quite an epic fail (That dubious distinction is reserved for logos that truly give me cancer of the soul, like the QMJHL's Lewistown Maineiacs or the ECHL's Grrreenville Grrrowl), but a fail nonetheless.