Friday, October 28, 2016Overcast 3°C
Sports & Play

Is this an even better Toronto Blue Jays logo?

Posted by Derek Flack / November 19, 2011

blue jays logoWhen the new Toronto Blue Jays logo and uniforms were released yesterday, there was quite the discussion in our comment thread about a critique we shared from a local designer who pointed out what in his estimation were some pretty glaring errors. Naturally someone finally suggested that Rob, the designer in question, put together a design that addressed the faults that had been identified — and wouldn't you know it, he did.

Blue Jays logoI like that. Although his own criticism became the subject of much criticism, here's someone who know how to put his money where his mouth is. So, now the question is which one is better? For my money, I like the revised one. Not only is it cleaner, but by not using two different fonts, the logo is more unified. Also noteworthy is how the stem of the maple leaf seamlessly turns into the outline of the ball — very slick. The entire design is also less angular (e.g. fonts, the blue jay's eye), which gives it a more contemporary look to my eyes.

What do you think?

Blue Jays logosCheck out What Their Bitch Is for more.



Dorothy Vallens / November 19, 2011 at 01:59 pm
A: Yes, it is.
Jobye / November 19, 2011 at 02:01 pm
Much better. Though, his version feels less menacing. Looks friendly compared to the other one. He's rounder, less lean like the other and the circle in the eye makes him look friendly.
Pete / November 19, 2011 at 02:01 pm
B: Yes, it is.
EJ / November 19, 2011 at 02:03 pm
I agree there is the need for the same lettering throughout but I think the split lettering of the original logo is more particular to the Jays and something I would love to see continued.
Gord L. / November 19, 2011 at 02:08 pm
Some of eyeamtheo's criticisms are valid, some seem nit-picky, but his re-do is definitely NOT an improvement.
Marc / November 19, 2011 at 02:09 pm
I prefer the more angular blue jay, personally. I don't like that the real Jays logo uses two fonts, but I like the split-letter font best of the three. And I like the official, non-split font second best. The critique font is boring.

I do like how the leaf runs into the ball in the critique, but it's also worth remembering that the (secondary) logo on the hat/uniform doesn't include the ball (as per MLB rules), but does include the leaf. How does the critique look if you take the ball out? I think the leaf would stick out too far on its own.
J / November 19, 2011 at 02:11 pm
the re-do is better other than the solid block lettering at the bottom.

the lettering w/ the white through the middle is key to making the word marks recognizable when they are used outside the logo (as on the front and back of the jerseys).
Dorothy Vallens / November 19, 2011 at 02:12 pm
Agreed, the bird is not as menacing. But angry logos were a very 90's trend in sports, I'm glad to see it has passed for the most part.
mike / November 19, 2011 at 02:14 pm
To be honest I think the comments and criticisms were valid of the original official logo design, but the new design shown here doesn't do enough justice. Certain elements of the original like the two stroke circular outline is nice and adds dimension, but I find the new font he used to be clunky and amateur. Maybe a hybrid of the two...
Marc replying to a comment from Marc / November 19, 2011 at 02:17 pm
A quick and dirty edit of the critique logo as it would appear on the uniform (sans ball or word mark):
John Mack / November 19, 2011 at 02:22 pm
I like the unified font and maple leaf/ball tweaks, but I prefer the aggressiveness (kind of a pin your ears back and go get em look) of the new blue jay and the bottom font on the new logo. It is a tip of the hat to the font used in the original which gives it some nostalgic value.
Sandman / November 19, 2011 at 02:22 pm
Not much of a design difference to make any real significance.
pz / November 19, 2011 at 02:25 pm
feck no, this is not better. what's with the BJ's Elvis poof-like hair? NO.
Art Director / November 19, 2011 at 02:30 pm
Because Rob is a "graphic designer" his insight and design is supposed to be better? I disagree. What he needs is an Art Director. All I'm seeing is a need to copy visual queues from the original logo. When I look at the OFFICIAL 2011 logoI, I am seeing more forward thinking and homage to the 1977 version. After reverting back to so many visuals from the original logo, Dan removed the most memorable part. The typography. In my opinion that is in most fans eyes the biggest visual queue that should be continued. Jobye said: "his version feels less menacing. Looks friendly compared to the other one." ITS A SPORTS TEAM! We want menacing. Just because you can see flaws in the execution of the illustration DOESN'T mean you've thought it through.
Sam / November 19, 2011 at 02:33 pm
Ha, thanks "Art Director".
GoJays / November 19, 2011 at 02:38 pm
oh jeez, get over it.
Mike / November 19, 2011 at 02:48 pm
Rob's is too Disney for my liking. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the official redesign.
Michael Fox / November 19, 2011 at 02:59 pm
I much prefer Rob's design, except I'd like to see it with hollowed out (white stripe) letters rather than solid blue. Consistent font top and bottom is the way to go.
Myron / November 19, 2011 at 03:03 pm
I actually disagree. I think that B looks more contemporary. The re-design looks plumper, and more dated. The tweak on the lettering works for me, though - as does the removal of the double-striped border.
Rob / November 19, 2011 at 03:03 pm
Hey guys, I'm glad I could promote more discussion about the current Blue Jays logo, Most people seem to agree about the logo needing the split lettering, I also agree, but in my exercise I wanted to see how stripped down and clean I could make the logo, with all the proportions being pleasing to the eye. And yes, it's friendly, before the 90's most teams did not have an angry, aggressive mascot. I am enjoying the feedback, criticism and comments.
jameson / November 19, 2011 at 03:19 pm
Actually when looking at the logos closely, they all kinda look like shit
Rob / November 19, 2011 at 03:32 pm
Also if there's any designers out there who have good ideas on improving the current logo I would love to see them and discuss.
No / November 19, 2011 at 03:42 pm
Not better, not by a long shot.
podhdop / November 19, 2011 at 03:59 pm
Never mind that the Blue Jays play in a stadium that is less than adequate for major league baseball, which is usually only a third full and that they haven't been close to the playoffs in years, but god forbid that they have a disproportional logo.
allisauce / November 19, 2011 at 04:01 pm
I feel like I'm looking at the balloon animal version of the original logo. It just looks too cute to my eye. I certainly wouldn't buy a hat with this on it. My kids? Sure.

I dislike the differing fonts in the new-official logo (and can look past that, but really prefer the sleekness of the bird.
Eric / November 19, 2011 at 04:04 pm
Definitely looks better (other than the font). Great job, Rob.
Steve Randen / November 19, 2011 at 04:05 pm
The revised one is clearly better.
Soren / November 19, 2011 at 04:06 pm
Much better - less noisy.
Radha Singh / November 19, 2011 at 04:27 pm
Don't like the critique's - too"fat" and flat. Needs to be more streamlined. Also, don't like the round eye. Also, love the different fonts. It makes "Blue Jays" stand out.
Gabe / November 19, 2011 at 04:29 pm
The only major improvement IMO is the smaller leaf connected to the ball.
deej / November 19, 2011 at 05:26 pm
Here is another logo... but I do like the revisions. I can't get an idea out of my head that in the original logo it looks like the birds mouth is full.
Bobby / November 19, 2011 at 05:44 pm
I think that Rob's is an improvement over the redesign, but not perfect to my eye. The original still trumps both.
CS / November 19, 2011 at 05:49 pm
I like the original a lot better. It's more dynamic. The revised one looks too rounded and cute and just dull. I don't like the font as much either.
JP / November 19, 2011 at 06:38 pm
I think it's really good.

But, when I look at it, I don't feel like 'ahh, this is much better because the imperfections in the official logo have been corrected.' It just looks like a cool variation to me.

I think people attacked you a bit because your criticisms were about pretty small, seemingly insignificant things (to the non-design person, anyway). Meanwhile, the Jays had thrown away a totally crap logo, gone back to blue and white, and given us a pretty cool new logo. It was hard to feel too nitpicky at the time.

But I will say, I think you did a great job. I think either version would be great.

As I believe you said, I think you've got to go with the split lettering. I believe the Jays are the only team to have used that kind of lettering, so it's kind of iconic to the team.
v79 / November 19, 2011 at 07:08 pm
The only things that could be seen as "improvements" here are the use of only one font for the wordmark and the size and location of the maple leaf. Other than that, the actual logo is vastly superior in every way.
Justin Adam / November 19, 2011 at 07:10 pm
The revision is stronger for sure. Nice job Rob.
bob / November 19, 2011 at 07:37 pm
The original is by far the best. The one this rob dude made makes the bird look chubby and gay.
Phil / November 19, 2011 at 07:48 pm
Rob's design lacks the fluidity and sleekness of the new logo. Also, it's all well and good using a solid, classic sans font but then that has no link to the past and would be pretty boring on the jersey.
Toby Buckets / November 19, 2011 at 07:58 pm
The original is still stronger than both new versions. Though I think they could lose the baseball stitching in the background. Perhaps it was useful to have a baseball in the logo when the team first expanded to Canada... but not so much after it won the world series twice.
v79 / November 19, 2011 at 08:18 pm
And since Rob asked for other designs, here's a quick mock up of my simple changes which I feel address the most common criticisms of the new logo, while keeping it's pluses (sleekness, modernity, etc);current=bjs.jpg
Stra / November 19, 2011 at 08:40 pm
Rob - sorry, but you kinda failed. You're not too into typography I think - that type face is so uninspired. You're maple leaf is so out of place in your version, and the blue jay looks chubby too. Your bird looks like a series of shapes - it doesn't come together as a bird.
Rob / November 19, 2011 at 09:10 pm
Hey Stra that's cool, the more opinions the better. I'd like to see your version though, maybe you could come up with something better? v79, just those little changes you did made it much better already!
kayin / November 19, 2011 at 09:11 pm
From a designer's point of view, I really like the one on the far left. Wait, is that the original one ?
Barry / November 19, 2011 at 10:55 pm
The so-called "designer" completely undermined his criticism by posting what he thought was a "better" version. The one he came up with is laughably bad. I can only guess that the people saying they like it are friends of his. It would easily be the most embarrassing logo in team history. It's comically bad. It would only appeal to grade-school kids.

Don't quit your day job. Unless your day job is as a designer.
Nelson / November 20, 2011 at 01:57 am
I like the one by vkung best because of what he did with the leaf except: IT MUST HAVE SPLIT LETTERING!

Remember, this isn't a corporate logo, it's a team logo for its fans' consumption, and one who's whole point is to pay homage to the past, which the majority of fans want.

Thus, updating the split font is fine, but getting rid of it because maybe the idea is not generally fashionable anymore, is missing the whole point.
Nelson replying to a comment from Nelson / November 20, 2011 at 02:04 am
P.S. Solid lettering would look pretty plain on the uni's by comparison.

Also, what I said above could also be said for having the baseball in the background. It's an homage to the original logo, and is simply a representation of what the team is. It's not there to explain what sport the Jays play in the even people were unaware.
Jake / November 20, 2011 at 02:14 am

Proportions on the redesign are much better. Much nicer shape. The letting is a little plain.

People complaining that the bird doesn't look mean enough need to get a life. As for the official design, it's hideous.

frank replying to a comment from Barry / November 20, 2011 at 02:17 am
Dude, in the absence of specifics, your comment has no credibility. Offer us something please — or stay in your cave.
acertainromance / November 20, 2011 at 03:58 am
love the newer one. they shuold fux wit dat.
only thing is the baseball's stiching may not be accurate... unless i am looking wrong?
Barry replying to a comment from frank / November 20, 2011 at 08:31 am
It looks like a cartoon character. Don't embarrass yourself by liking it.

Stra replying to a comment from Rob / November 20, 2011 at 08:34 am
Rob, I don't work for free sorry. I'm one of the few that loves the new logo anyway, so this exercise is a bit frivolous. Btw. You do know there's no such thing as "bad vectoring" correct? It's a term that cannot exist.
Brent / November 20, 2011 at 09:13 am
yikes! what's with the bird's eye Rob? its way too low. also, this bird looks fat and a little slow. somehow it looks like it has down syndrome.
Noel / November 20, 2011 at 12:14 pm
The original 1977 logo is the best.
greg / November 20, 2011 at 02:38 pm
Rob's version makes it look like we have a fat bird who is slow and weak. I like the re-make that the Blue Jays released the best.
cassandra / November 20, 2011 at 05:25 pm
So many critical tongues out here!! I'm sure we can all agree that both re-designs are 110% better than that barf they had last season. So yay for getting rid of the crappy logo and bringing retro back!!
Cha / November 20, 2011 at 05:59 pm
I really don't think those are 2 different typefaces in the new logo - one version in the type family has a center line through it - a great way to create the needed contrast here. Also I love that this type is both modern and also throws back to the (type geek alert) bifurcated tuscans of much old timey type - think the As, Red Sox etc. - with the thorns on the sides. Bravo new design!

Also, that Gotham typeface in the Rob version is soooooooo overused.
george / November 20, 2011 at 09:36 pm
Rob, your revised version looks like a fat kid as opposed to the original being forward and strong. Your choice of not using the original split font shows you haven't been briefed properly by the client.
Ken Ly / November 21, 2011 at 12:03 pm
My theory on the new logo is that it represents the younger Blue Jays. The thin sleek look and clean appearance show's the prequel to the original Jays logo. The last logo was more bold, mature and older looking with the graphite, blue and black.

Just think about it this way:

- new logo = baby jays
- original logo = junior jays
- Late 90's logo with the "T" and bird with bat = teen jays
- last logo with bold look = adult old and slow jays.

It's a new era guys. Expect a title soon.
Jordan / November 21, 2011 at 12:23 pm
The original one wins - the new new one looks like someone hit the 'bold' button on it.
Jak / November 21, 2011 at 12:43 pm
I don't think so. Looks cheaper and more like a cartoon, Wimpy and even funny.
Alex / November 21, 2011 at 01:15 pm
I like the new logo better. Rob's is just a blend of the old and the new logo's, not a redesign. I think he was just nostalgic. I liked the old logo better than all the crap they've had since then, but I like the new logo best. The colours are more vibrant and the Blue Jay is more realistic in that it looks aggressive. The old Blue Jay looked like you could go up and pet it, but a real Blue Jay would peck your face off if you got near its nest.

New logo or not, I still wouldn't watch a Jays game unless I was watching it on tv while doing something else. And there is always something better on tv than baseball.
barker / November 21, 2011 at 10:43 pm
The Rob Version looks like David Miller when he entered office (pudgy face and pouffy hair) and the Official 2012 version looks like Miller leaving office (leaner and less hair).
frank / November 22, 2011 at 01:53 pm
Rob, your bird is a nerd.

Toby Buckets / November 23, 2011 at 11:10 pm
The floating version of the new logo = win.
At a glance, Rob's logo feels like a Junior Jay's softball team logo.
josh / November 24, 2011 at 02:40 pm
No. This is why you need to keep graphic designers in check. Too simple (i.e. font, hair, outer circle), too cute/cartoonish (i.e. eye, hair, beak). The only thing I like better is the maple leaf.
saigon / November 24, 2011 at 05:53 pm
good on rob for putting his neck out there and giving an opinion..

bad on rob for coming back with that pathetic version of the logo.
Bongo / December 1, 2011 at 03:41 pm
I too like the revised one, a lot cleaner and clearer. Note to article author: Why did I have to read for 2 minutes to figure out which is the revised one and which was the original (before seeing the 3-in-a-row thumbnails). Would have been nice to put a "Original" and "Revised" label on the big images.
giltedAlexander / June 5, 2012 at 09:27 am
Go to my [url=]review[/url] site!!!
Dave / August 17, 2012 at 07:56 pm
I guess it's fair to say that you (Derek) and Rob your designer were dead wrong with you assessment of the logo. The new logo seems to be everywhere I look. A great success if I don't say so myself. As for your redesign... really. If your going to Monday Night quarter back a logo be sure you have the talent to back it up.
Logod / October 3, 2014 at 04:44 am
Great, i like the design you have made, well done :)
Other Cities: Montreal