A very close look at the badges and possible changes

Sport Billy got me thinking a bit more about the Whitecaps badge.

It has had two major versions, as most people know: the "retro", and the modern "comic" style. While they differ in style, they do not at all differ in elements:



- a wave rising on the right and rolling left with the "whitecap" centred
- four main components of the wave
- a soccer ball larger than the wave, but centred in it
- some form of the team name above it
- a lighter blue accenting a darker blue (tho not DARK blue, since they use royal blue as the darker shade)

Where they do differ is that the comic logo has:
- alternating colours in the component parts of the waves
- additional lined on the sides of the shield, forming a wide-"V"

But SportBilly's offering made me wonder about the possibility of adding elements to the badge, or serious changing existing elements.

What could we add?
What could we change?

It is simple and classic, I personally wouldn't want to change it too much. I want the four basic elements to remain (well, the team name above the badge I don't care about so much), but what could you add?

Mountains (suggested by someone) works against the badge in two ways:
1. It takes away from the focus on the wave, splitting the iconicity
2. It makes the badge VERY busy
3. The Rapids already are using a mountain motif as their team identity, and I respect that

Sport Billy suggested a "castle" motif along the top of the shield, but it doesn't have much to with Vancouver (I think he mentioned it was on the flag - but it is not on the flag of thee city of Vancouver, so I am not sure what he was referencing.) What it did make me realize is that adding any more major elements to the badge looks VERY busy.

As a standalone piece of design, I think the comic style logo is cool.

As the single most important icon of the Whitecaps organization, I think it lacks class and a sense of professional flair, and by extension, lacks the timelessness I would hope for in the preeminent icon of the FO. It's not bad - it's not even low-class - just not enough class, IMO.

Okay, admittedly I missed it.

Now I ask you to go interview 10,000 residents of Vancouver at random and see if even ten of them know about it. I didn't, and I lived in Vancouver almost my whole life!

Note the far more prominent feature of the flag: WAVES!

Granted that the flag DOES contain that crown/rampart (and admitting that I like it a great deal) I still wonder if it just too overwhelming to add to the badge if we hope to retain the other elements.

Thoughts?

Can anyone tell us for certain what that crown/wall is?

Okay, I looked it up myself. The gold symbol inside the green field is the official "city badge" of the city of Vancouver. The oar and the axe are from the 2nd coat of arms of the city of Vancouver (used until 1969) and that thing that I didn't know if it was a castle or a crown? It is in fact --- BOTH!

In heraldry, it is referred to as a "mural crown" and is a symbol of governmental authority. In other words, it is a widely prevalent heraldic symbol that EVERY city in the world that registers a coat of arms with the heraldic college is likely to use. As cool as it looks, it is not in any way tied uniquely to Vancouver: it is in fact used by literally hundreds of city, villages, communes, and provinces thruout Europe. (Interesting bit of trivia: it is actually inappropriate for Vancouver to use a mural crown with three towers, as that is the designation for a village; a city is supposed to use five towers in a mural crown.) It's not that we can't use it, just that it is not really "Vancouver".

Take a look at the Vancouver coat of arms: it is actually really cool, and contains more Vancouver elements:


Note:
- ship's mast (used by clubs like Citeh, but no American clubs)
- totem pole
- dogwood flowers
- totem pole
- limberjack, fisherman
- note the predominant colors: blue, white, and GOLD...

Johnnie, what about the wave element? You wouldn't be sorry to see that go? I would. Thankfully (to my tastes at any rate) the Caps FO will never ditch the wave.

I agree that the 86sers original logo was class, and nicely old school - but it didn't sell, which is probably why they changed to that horrible comic-book title logo when they changed to red and black. The other problem with the coat-of-arms logo is that it is so close to the coat-of-arms that companies could make knockoffs without reproducing our actual badge. I think we'd need more distance from the coat-of-arms.

The interesting thing to me about that logo is that it is closer to the pre-1969 coat of arms than the current coat-of-arms. The flag does that too. I wonder why that is?

Except for the comic-gothic, blue "home-plate" behind the Seattle shield (I still don't quite get the shape), I agree that TFC and SSFC (and LA Galaxy, IMO) have the best badges in the league. (And I REALLY like the grey in TFC unis! )

I really like the style of the affiliate badges. If the Whitecaps could take their current elements and use the style their affiliate clubs use, I think we'd really have something.

I added the mural crown not only because it was represented on the flag.
I also used it because the mural crown's heraldic meaning is "Defender of a fortress." It can also be a token of civic honour. I thought both of these meanings were very appropriate for a team's crest - so I went with it.

I should say that the current Arsenal like crest is not bad if it wasn't for that very minor league "Whitecaps" cartoon font across the top.

I too used the V shape for the crest. I had thought about putting the waves of the flag behind the wave/whitecap, but I felt it would be too busy.

Seattle's crest is growing on me, but with that blue thing, it looks kind of like some Star Trek logo and the space needle is some type of rocket probe launching.

Can I ask, what do you think of the current St. Louis logo? IMO, it could be one of the best in the league, but I'm biased.


I should note, that before the Arch was erected in the late '60's, this statue was THE symbol of St. Louis. That is the inspiration for the crest.

I am not sure about the green and white stripes (only because I think those should "belong" to the Timbers), but the logo itself would be - in my opinion - hands-down the best badge in MLS and one of the better badges worldwide, truly.

Oh, and when St. Louis plays Montreal, the match should be called "La Guerre des Fleures" - the War of the Flowers (a reference to the fleur-de-lis motif prevalent in both cities culture.)

White - I'm sorry, I linked to the wrong colors - that was one I was toying with in photoshop. The correct one is now up. Sorry.

They are already using it for the academy team we already have running.

The academy team was made from a merger of St. Louis Soccer Club, Scott Gallagher, and Metro United - three local clubs.

Here is what Scott Gallagher has on their website.



That being said, I think we will be an initial team (AC, FC etc).
It would be easy to squeeze that in the one line.

ps - I really didn't try to hijack - I'm sorry.


On topic. I agree with the "Aroundtheworld", Get a new "Whitecaps" and you're fine.

You would rather they gambled? I would MUCH rather they played it safe. Going on on a graphic limb prodcues such things as these monstrosities:

Tampa Bay Mutiny (who used "halves" jerseys, which I really like). Note the ugly touches, like the font, the oversized head, the hideous curvature of the wings. Good colours though, and nice shield.






Washington Wizards. Is it a wizard, or the chinese character for "suckage"? Did this thing SERIOUSLY get test marketed? (BTW, props to to the team for being the first modern team to get away from monochromatic unis, even if they don't look that great.) Plus, why does it look like they stuck a piece of blue in his crotch?





Orlando Thunder. Missing from the picture is their primary color: flourescent green (no, I am not kidding). Note to team: you can't see thunder - that's lightning.

Is the SWI I see in that logo intentional (I cannot imagine it wouldn't be)
If so, what does it stand for?