and we're done

This is the current Knicks logo. This is what the Knicks logo looked like in 1992. Little has changed, y'all. They added a little "New York" and modified the colors recently, but have done nothing else to alter a design that's been the primary logo for over twenty years. That emblem has been a constant symbol of the team, and its distinctive big, block lettering echoed throughout several other teams' redesigns in the '90s, some of which are still in place today. So, where did this logo-- which has persisted through multiple Knicks regimes-- come from? With the help of P&T citizen normanhathaway, I had the pleasure of corresponding with Michael Doret, the man who made the Knicks logo.

Doret is a New York-raised, Los Angeles-based designer and lettering artist with a rather extensive resume. When the NBA approached him in Spring of 1991, he'd already done some work for the league, as well as designs and design ideas for the MLB, the NFL, TIME Magazine, the band Kiss(!), and a lot more. So, the league felt pretty confident in his abilities and gave him pretty much free reign to try out different logos and letterforms:

"Before starting on this design project I didn't receive that much input from the NBA other than the directive that they wanted to have something symbolic of New York CIty incorporated into the logo. After discussion we eliminated several options (such as the Statue of Liberty), and settled on the iconic Empire State Building as the only viable alternative that might work in the new logo. So in the beginning stages that was the given which, as we all know, they ended up deciding against as the logo development progressed. I think other than keeping the original blue and orange from the old logo, there wasn't that much else given me in terms of requirements. The directions I took were mostly left up to me."

It was a fairly open-ended task and, as Michael notes, the only specific request made of him didn't even make it to the final product. So, with that dearth of instruction in mind, he set about producing a variety of design concepts. In Part 1 of our magical journey through Michael's old files, he'll show us some of the concepts the Knicks didn't end up picking.

To generate ideas, Michael began with some rough sketches, examples of which are below.

700


700


700


700


700


700


700


With the Empire State Building icon relatively unchangeable, Michael focused his imagination on the lettering:

"At that time (and even still) my work was all very lettering-oriented. I was trying to open up new areas of letterform design that, up until that point, had tended to be a bit stodgy and traditional. I was just trying to do something different for the time. In actuality I was picking up a lot of cues from bygone eras, from when lettering was really in its heyday-like in the 1930s and '40s-only this time around with a slight twist."

Some of the sketches and elements of others eventually made it into color concepts which, before the widespread use of computer design programs, Michael rendered in colored pencil (the '90s were a dark time).

700


700


700


700


Any of these could have ended up as the Knicks' primary logo (and, incidentally, Michael loves all his logo babies, but told me the first of those color logos was his favorite), but alas, they could only pick one

In Part 2 (tomorrow, perhaps) we'll look at the process behind the logo of Michael's that the Knicks did choose, and learn about how another familiar piece of Knicks iconography also comes from Michael's desk.

http://www.postingandtoasting.com/2012/9/11/3305486/knicks-logo-michael-doret-part-1
 
Didn't see we had a new thread.. My mind, body and soul are ready for elite Knicks basketball... Been saying it all summer. M[elo]VP this year! :pimp:
 
I mess with all of those logos. We should start using them with a gang of alternate jerseys, even bring back the fat Knickerbocker dribbling the ball :lol:
No disrespect to the long-time Knick fans, but I don't understand why anyone would want Ewing to coach anywhere. He simply doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer. His academic troubles are well-documented, and his interviews show me nothing other than an average functioning adult. He has little to no presence when he speaks. I don't see the verbal leader necessary to keep a team of young athletes on the same page.
At the very least, Mark Jackson can commentate a game without me asking myself if everything is alright with him. If anyone feels Ewing could call games without it being a cringeworthy experience, please feel free to explain.
I have nothing against the guy (except for the fact that he traveled... a lot), but he's never displayed the mental sharpness I would expect of a good coach. #lightshrug
Son you fail for equating/comparing commentating to head coaching. MAJOR FAIL

Mark Jackson will continue to prove to be a poor head coach, word is bond and he'll be able to spin it because of being able to talk the talk so ppl like you wil just givem another chance to prove he's a failure of a coach.
Great news :pimp:

Now lets hope nobody else hires them I don't even want to see these bums on NBAtv. Hope ESPN drops Broussard as their NBA speculator as well.
I cannot stand Simmons smug face. I can listen to his podcast sometimes, but his voice gets annoying too.
He makes PTI unwatchable when he fills in. I'd rather Tony pull another shift and argue with Tony or Mike. He just doesn't have it to be an on tv kind of sports guy.
 
Last edited:
T-Mac was a solid role player in Atlanta in all seriousness. Just shouldn't be playing heavy minutes game to game. He can still create for himself and others and he shot well from 3 (45%). But I think we have too many perimeter guys as it is right now.
 
Son you fail for equating/comparing commentating to head coaching. MAJOR FAIL
Mark Jackson will continue to prove to be a poor head coach, word is bond and he'll be able to spin it because of being able to talk the talk so ppl like you wil just givem another chance to prove he's a failure of a coach.

No, harlot, you fail for not being able to interpret what I said. I never said, "Mark Jackson is a commentator, therefore he'll be a good he'd coach," did I? DID I?!!

Actually, point out where I said Mark Jackson was even a "good" commentator. Then point where I said he was a "good" coach. I said he could talk with out me asking what's wrong with him. Ewing makes me question his intelligence base on the way he formulates his speech. That's not a good look from any non-physical ("lead by example"-type) leader.

Then point out where you're actually making a case for Patrick Ewing as a coach...

So now what?
 
Last edited:
Chris Broussard ‏@Chris_Broussard

Olajuwon will be in NY next week to work out with @Amareisreal @carmeloanthony @tysonchandler & @MarcusCamby23

Melo learning from the dream 
sick.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom