What do you think of the new Toronto Blue Jays logo?

Brutal. It's like all these Hollywood movies. Does no one have an original idea any more?

love

god why did they put "Toronto" in a different font than "Blue Jays"? I love the graphic but the designer should be shot for the type.

does anyone else hate birds?

I love it!! The "angry jay" was so awful: cartoony, overly-macho, "edgy" for no purpose, just wrong. This new one is great, it looks like a jay but stylized, modern and very appealing. MUCH better! I would happily seek out Jays merchandise with this new logo (which I would NEVER have done with the old "angry" jay!)

Okay, so they went back to the old logo (for the most part). How long until they feel the need to change it up again? Either way, a Jays game is the most boring sporting event to watch in Toronto.

I don't care what anyone says... This is personally, the best news of my day.

blogTO, credit where credit is due:
http://whattheirbitchis.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-is-wrong-with-this-logo.html

Looks great! A take on the traditional logo but sharpened up to look new and modern. Just enough change to create a great new logo while still showing respect to the old one. Also a big fan of the road jerseys saying TORONTO.

Can't wait till baseball season!

That user's comments compare the new logo to the old. It's called an update, they weren't aiming to make it exactly the same. Quit nitpicking.

Hi I'm the guy who did the logo critique. I wasn't trying to make the critique seem like I wanted it to look like the original logo, but through the eyes of a graphic designer who takes his time to perfect everything, there are clear flaws in how it was executed. The mathematics of the logo are just wrong. I can tell they eyeballed this thing and the designer who did it doesn't know how to use Adobe Illustrator well and didn't use any rules from the golden ratio. Sorry for getting all nerdy with this but it's important to me.

Jays change their uni and logo every few years to maximize merchandise revenue because they have a lot of trouble getting fans in the seats. When the Jays were winning in the 80's and early 90's, not one logo change. In the last 15 years, there's been 4 major changes.

Hey type-dummies, that's actually the same typeface for both ‘Toronto’ and ‘Blue Jays‘ (treated with a line through it). This logo is an improvement over the last one despite some of it's shortcomings in execution. Easy to blame the single designer working in a void, but this is the type of project that is unfortunately done by committee.

One of the most important flaws to me is the fact that it's just a bad rendering of an actual blue jay bird, If you google a blue jay you'll see what I mean. A blue jay has a more pronounced crest, the designer flattened out the top of the head. The beak is also too short in the new logo.

I guess it could be argued that the level of simplification of a literal blue jay is quite subjective as well?

'Toronto' being in a different font makes sense - it's the city name, which isn't always considered part of the team name. That critique is legitimate if you're comparing to the old one, but as a new logo, I think it's a great modernized throwback. Not sure whether people dislike it because it's too much like the old one, or because it's not enough.

Your justification for your critique (not following the golden rule) is hilarious! Every single point you made except for one were actually criticisms of why the new logo should have been drawn like the old one. They're all terribly subjective, so for you to say that "font is too sharp", "leaf is too big", or "ball outline should have merged with leaf stem" is in some way connected to the golden rule or the designer's lack of facility in Adobe Illustrator is just laughable. You obviously really liked the 1977 version. Great, I get it. But if that's your point, make it that way. Don't try to dress up your argument in fancy but ill-fitting clothes.

While I don't agree with all of the points made in the critique image above, I agree that it seems like it was done without attention to certain details. Say all you want about it being personal opinion (because to a certain extent of course it is) but certain parts of the design are very poorly executed. To go with some things that the critique pointed out - the points on the right side of the top part of the head are very sloppily placed, they don't follow any apparent rhythm at all. The point near the front of the top of the head is a bad curve, it was eyeballed, and not extremely well. The type is atrocious but the type on the old one wasn't perfect either. In fact, the old one had plenty wrong with it as well. I actually like the ball stitching and maple leaf on the new version (having the stem connect on the old one looked awkward and didn't properly create the illusion that the ball was complete) and I'm a fan of the more angular bird.

All in all though what really matters is that this thing is a billion times nicer than the most recent logo. Yikes.

Veronica, if you are a designer I'm sure you've gotten revisions before. Revisions are based on an art directors expertise. Subjective? Well, depends on if you trust this persons experience/eye. I agree with the points Rob made.
Sezme, you're very passionate in defending this work and I'm happy you like it. The fact is, there are some very amateur mistakes in it's execution. If you work in illustrator everyday I'm sure you notice them, how much it bothers you is another question.

Love it! The black/graphite uniforms were terrible. These are legitimately great. Nice job.

Hey Man, I was honestly trying to do an unbiased critique from a design perspective. of course there's some personal opinion but I stand by it. Not sure why you think some of my points like "not following the golden rule is hilarious", It's a standard for building art through math.( When the apple logo was designed they spared no expense.) Anyways, the new logo is what it is, I'm glad I could make some conversation happen.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lohor8b6oR1qhfqpio1_500.jpg

Follow up from the guy who did the notes on the logo:

I was honestly trying to do an unbiased critique from a design perspective. of course there's some personal opinion but I stand by it. Not sure why you think some of my points like "not following the golden rule is hilarious", It's a standard for building art through math.( When the apple logo was designed they spared no expense.) Anyways, the new logo is what it is, I'm glad I could make some conversation happen.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lohor8b6oR1qhfqpio1_500.jpg

um...isn't that all that hipsters are, in the end?

*eyeroll* @ westsideto

You know these 'rules' are just an invention of graphic dictators

Interesting how almost all the points regarding "What's wrong with this logo?" could not have been made without a comparison to the original. If it was looked at as something new and not a revision, there would be few to no "wrongs with this logo."

"I'd like to see what you'd come up with." Just read his critiques: he'd obviously come up with the 1977 logo. In fact there's no way he could have made all these particular critiques without having seen the old logo. Golden rule indeed!

not a huge fan...never liked the original to begin with

I too am a graphic designer, and whilst I too can look at it and say "I might have done a few things a little differently" I am really, really pleased with the new logo. I personally love the typography I think the subtle serifs work really nicely (they look fantastic on the jerseys).

Whilst the logo of the past is a classic and holds great sentimental value for all, certain elements look very dated (especially the typography) and we're in need of an refresh.

I think the MLB design team did a great job all things considered and judging by the response of the fanbase the vast majority do too. I'm heading out to buy a cap today!

My only criticism is I would have loved to have seen a white fronted cap as it's just such a classic.

Rob has made the changes to his original notes.
http://whattheirbitchis.blogspot.com/2011/11/revisions.html

Wow. Now THAT is what the new logo should look like. Seeing Rob's suggestions implemented proves that he was right.

Excellent work Rob!

Get a life.

I think it's hella nicer than that horrid blob that was on last year's logo. I think it's cool they are bringing retro back. But I do agree with previous posts that the different font type breaks the continuity but overall, A !!!!!

the diagram isn't really saying what is wrong with it, it literally just points and states how each part doesn't look like the original.