Thome25 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I screwed up again, I uploaded this into the wrong download area again. It went into the MVP06 NCAA downloads. Can a Adim change that for me? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadcap Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Looks cool Thome. I am going to have to check this out. Nice preview too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moser316 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 The only critique I have for this uniform set is that you used the current Phillies script wordmark. The one for the 1950-69 era is very different from what they use today. Unfortunately, I don't have time to find a photographic example right now, but go to Mitchell & Ness's website (or a retailer like Distant Replays) to see what exactly I'm talking about. It seems like you tried to be accurate (as evidenced by the cap logo), so it makes the uniform set seem inconsistent. Otherwise, nice work. That preview pic is a work of art BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thome25 Posted February 15, 2006 Author Share Posted February 15, 2006 Sorry, but I went off the mitchell and ness jersey. Here is a pic I got and it looks close too me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzone Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 that looks pretty accurate. he moser, show me some of your accurate uniforms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moser316 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I'm sorry Fuzz, was that a threat? Sarcasm doesn't really translate well to an Internet message board posting. If I'm misconstruing your post, I apologize. But if not, your comment wasn't needed here. I was generally positive in my critique, I just didn't think the wordmark looked accurate to me. And God forbid I have anything bad to say about M&N's work, but theirs looks awfully similar to their current wordmark, which is a bit more plump and straight-across. EDIT: You wanted photographic evidence, you've got it: Notice how much thinner the script looks in some places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriegz Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I'm sorry Fuzz, was that a threat? Sarcasm doesn't really translate well to an Internet message board posting. If I'm misconstruing your post, I apologize. But if not, your comment wasn't needed here. I was generally positive in my critique, I just didn't think the wordmark looked accurate to me. And God forbid I have anything bad to say about M&N's work, but theirs looks awfully similar to their current wordmark, which is a bit more plump and straight-across. EDIT: You wanted photographic evidence, you've got it: Notice how much thinner the script looks in some places fuzz = sarcasm 90% of the time It's all good man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.