The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

(09-10-2021 07:13 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

I cannot express how much I hate that 1995 logo

(09-10-2021 07:13 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

Those are not the only UC logos just a sample through the years. Two different block UC are missing as well as a couple different Bearcat designs.

(09-10-2021 07:22 AM)Bearcat419 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:13 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

I cannot express how much I hate that 1995 logo

Interesting. I personally prefer that bearcat to the one we use now. Why do you hate that logo so much?

(09-10-2021 07:36 AM)Lurkercat Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:22 AM)Bearcat419 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:13 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

I cannot express how much I hate that 1995 logo

Interesting. I personally prefer that bearcat to the one we use now. Why do you hate that logo so much?

I vividly recall in 2009 being in the extreme minority that felt the new c-paw logo was better than the 1990 version. And now when I look at those side-by-side I can't believe anyone liked the 1990 version better. Its so thin and dainty.

(09-10-2021 08:55 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:36 AM)Lurkercat Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:22 AM)Bearcat419 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:13 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

I cannot express how much I hate that 1995 logo

Interesting. I personally prefer that bearcat to the one we use now. Why do you hate that logo so much?

I vividly recall in 2009 being in the extreme minority that felt the new c-paw logo was better than the 1990 version. And now when I look at those side-by-side I can't believe anyone liked the 1990 version better. Its so thin and dainty.

Yeah, I think the current C-paw is the best C-paw aesthetically for sure...my guess is the very fond memories attached to the 90's C-paw are why people think it's "better"

(09-10-2021 08:55 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:36 AM)Lurkercat Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:22 AM)Bearcat419 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:13 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

I cannot express how much I hate that 1995 logo

Interesting. I personally prefer that bearcat to the one we use now. Why do you hate that logo so much?

I vividly recall in 2009 being in the extreme minority that felt the new c-paw logo was better than the 1990 version. And now when I look at those side-by-side I can't believe anyone liked the 1990 version better. Its so thin and dainty.

Yes, that was the critique of the old C-Paw, especially for licensed embroidery, etc.

That 1960 Bearcat (posted above) or a slight variation on it, was used by more than one school; in fact I believe it might have been the UCLA Bruin at one point. I'm not sure there was much licensing going on at that time so schools would just go with similar designs.

With my UC memorabilia, I have a 7 inch tall version of that 1960 Bearcat that was actually designed as a child's coin bank. It's pretty cool and I believe it came from a clearance table in the Bookstore in the Physics Building in the mid-70's.

It's a great day to celebrate all things UC.

(09-10-2021 07:22 AM)Bearcat419 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:13 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

I cannot express how much I hate that 1995 logo

Dude, the 1987 logo is calling...

THAT was a truly horrible, boring, and unimaginative logo.

Who the he11 looked at that font and thought, "yeah, that's the ticket"?

(09-10-2021 11:02 AM)namrag Wrote:  Dude, the 1987 logo is calling...

THAT was a truly horrible, boring, and unimaginative logo.

Who the he11 looked at that font and thought, "yeah, that's the ticket"?

You're right; ironically that was the logo when I started going to games so I remember drawing that as a kid. But yes, easily the worst but at least it's the easiest to draw since I never had any artistic skills.

(09-10-2021 11:08 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:02 AM)namrag Wrote:  Dude, the 1987 logo is calling...

THAT was a truly horrible, boring, and unimaginative logo.

Who the he11 looked at that font and thought, "yeah, that's the ticket"?

You're right; ironically that was the logo when I started going to games so I remember drawing that as a kid. But yes, easily the worst but at least it's the easiest to draw since I never had any artistic skills.

Ha! Same. Good thing I wasn't a kid in 1914.

(09-10-2021 11:02 AM)namrag Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:22 AM)Bearcat419 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:13 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

I cannot express how much I hate that 1995 logo

Dude, the 1987 logo is calling...

THAT was a truly horrible, boring, and unimaginative logo.

Who the he11 looked at that font and thought, "yeah, that's the ticket"?

Can’t agree more. Just awful.

Though the University spent good money for the visually confusing and eye-hurting non-athletic logo that goes on all letterhead, websites, etc.

I like the 1990 c paw but not the similarities to the Chic-fil-A logo. My fave is the simple, classic C from 1900.

(09-10-2021 11:02 AM)namrag Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:22 AM)Bearcat419 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 07:13 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Apparently it wasn't an official logo.

I cannot express how much I hate that 1995 logo

Dude, the 1987 logo is calling...

THAT was a truly horrible, boring, and unimaginative logo.

Who the he11 looked at that font and thought, "yeah, that's the ticket"?

It was the 80's. Everything was awful in the 80's...

Plus, I don't see random gear lingering out on the market with that logo on it still. it was rightfully forgotten.

When the 2009 logo came out the main gripe I heard wasn't a disdain for the logo, it was the ungodly amount of money the university paid to the design team to hit bold and italicize.

The 1987 logo was brutal. The 1990 logo was the best since it created a simple yet iconic image that will identify this university forever. The 2009 logo is definitely a better version of the 1990 logo, but the '90 design team deserves credit for creating the the iconic logo.

Best logo's to worst:

2009
1990 (paved the way for the best)
1968
1980
1914
1960
1995
1900
1971
1987

Huh, I loved the 1987 logo. I think it is the engineer in me. I prefer the straight lines and sharp angles.