The leaked alleged logo for the Miami Marlins has stirred considerable discussion and criticism since it appeared on the Internet last week.
In cyber land, the multicolored ‘M’ accented by an abstract marlin has been about as welcome as an invasive virus, or at best as one of those annoying pop-up screens that you can’t click off.
It has drawn all manner of critics and colorful putdowns. Even popular former Marlin Dan Uggla gave the one at right a resounding Ugh!, telling the Miami Herald that he felt “bad for those guys if they have to wear that next year. I think it should be officially deleted.”
Several informal polls were leaning strongly toward “awful” and “horrific.” One Marlins official pointed out that there tends to be strong negative reaction to change from anything familiar, and that it is a good sign that people are talking about it and are interested.
My wife, Fran, a graphic designer, offers a couple of variations at the bottom of this post.
Officially, the Marlins will confirm nothing before they unveil the new logo and uniforms at the ballpark in Little Havana on Nov. 11. Team president David Samson did say in a television interview with CBS4’s Jorge Sedano that the leaked logo is “inaccurate.”
The web site sportslogos.net claims to have confirmed that leaked logo is the insignia that will appear on the Marlins’ caps (minus the lettering above), and that the primary logo is slightly different to accommodate display on a white background.
I received similar information from an anonymous e-mailer who claims to have seen the logos and uniform designs on Major League Baseball’s style guide for 2012, which restricts access to official entities and business partners of MBL. This individual reports that there are color variations depending on the background, such as the white fill replaced by black on the primary logo.
For what it’s worth, the e-mailer also offered this information: Both a black and an orange cap; primary uniforms white for home, gray for the road, with MIAMI across the chest; a black and an orange alternate with MARLINS across the chest.
We’ll find out for sure on Nov. 11, and it is sure to grow on us as familiarity sets in.
As I look at the leaked logo today, I don’t dislike it as much as I did at first glance. What bothers me most is the yellow. It seems as if it was designed by a kid with a new box of Crayolas. There are too many colors. Narrow it down.
Here my view: I would prefer a blue-dominated color scheme. There are no orange marlins in the sea. But owner Jeffrey Loria’s affinity for orange is well known. And, well, the new ballpark is on the site of the former Orange Bowl. I do like the choice of a lighter sherbet shade of orange rather than the one that recalls too many empty seats at Sun Life Stadium.
The giant M seems better suited to mark the entrance to a Metro Rail station. And I am dismayed that the stylized marlin looks more like an accent mark than the fierce fighting fish Wayne Huizenga chose as the namesake for his expansion team.
Give me a bigger marlin, a bolder blue look (and more cowbell, please, Ozzie!).
Here are two alternatives offered by Fran Davis. She took the essential elements from the leaked logo and emphasized the marlin. Afterall, they aren't the M's.
Marlins blue and teal with starburst:
Marlins alternate with orange accent:
Do you like these better? If anyone has a better idea, send them to firstname.lastname@example.org and I will post some of the most intriguing submissions.