Phoenix Suns Unveil New Logos for 2013-14 Season
A franchise with an extensive, rich history but in desperate need of an injection of energy, the Phoenix Suns needed a makeover with the perfect blend of old and new.
Consider it done.
On Wednesday afternoon, the franchise revealed its four new logos that it will use this year, via NBA.com.
Here's a look at No. 1:
It may be only because I grew up in the '90s, but this is immediately my favorite. A new take on the logo that was prominent during what many refer to as the "Charles Barkley years," this design not only sends nostalgia running through my veins, but it also has a sleek, modern feel.
Batting 1.000 so far.
Here's No. 2:
This design is the one attached to the most recent successful Suns squads of the 2000s—the one made famous by the "seven seconds or less" teams.
It isn't noticeably different right off the bat, but it has undergone some useful, subtle changes, and yet it still importantly displays the unique creativity of the phoenix bird rising from the flames.
On to No. 3:
Sometimes, simple is better, and in this case, that's true. This is the wordmark featured on the team's new court last season.
And finally, No. 4:
Fusing the past with the present, the Suns introduce the "S" logo but also creatively insert the sunburst that embodies this franchise.
As for the actual colors of all of the above logos, fans will likely be upset by the lack of purple, and it's understandable. Orange and purple represent the Suns. Orange and black is Halloween.
How would you grade the new logos?
Don't worry, though.
According to NBA.com, "the team’s prominent color will be orange, with purple, black and gray rounding out the color palette. The team will use multiple color versions of each logo, including options highlighting the purple and black."
In the midst of the longest playoff drought since the late '80s, the Suns are clearly in rebuild mode.
These new logos will represent the next era of success while still giving a nod to the past.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?