*** Apologies for uploading to the wrong department before, I wrongly assumed that's where it went - didn't realise there was a competition on. I came back to the crest and realised, with a fresh pair of eyes, the shield was too fat. I'm torn between whether to include a band like on the existing crest, so here's two alternatives. *** The Liverbird is a thing of beauty, and as a standalone crest, it appears elegant on the shirt. The official club crest on the other hand, is everything a modern logo shouldn’t be. Yes, it has a certain prestige and class, but it is simply too eventful. It has four excessive colour tones and sports an outdated gradient. The biggest problem however, is its sheer mawkish nature – something Liverpool could afford to shed a little. For instance, why are the Shankly gates present? Aren’t the Shankly gates themselves THE tribute to their former legendary manager? The gates grace the entrance to Anfield, why can’t they simply be one and of its own feature, instead of appearing as a droste-like tribute act on the crest as well? What, should we put the famous Kop on the crest? How about a series of scarves, the lyrics to YNWA, Keegan’s perm, where does one stop? This sentiment is baggage on top of the crest. I’m not sure why 1892 needs to be there – and this is the case for many clubs. Original Source shampoo emblazons its bottles with EST 1996 – why? Notts County yes, maybe even the twelve founding clubs, but outside of those, I don’t see its worth on a crest, other than filler material, something the Liverpool crest does not require. The Hillsborough flames are of course a more sensitive and significant addition. On this concept design, I have left them off – the flames appear on the back of the shirt these days, not on the standalone Liverbird. From a design point of view, the flames (or perhaps a single flame), look ill-fitted around the Liverbird, or outside the shield. However, if enlisted, I would consult the club and its fans, and it would ultimately be their decision. The Liverbird itself has too many needless and rather difficult to reproduce feathers. I have trimmed this down to a more stylish, thicker plumage. The crest is now two-tone, 2-d and clutter free and retains its main features from the existing template. When you have an image as iconic as Liverpool’s Liverbird, there’s no need for a drastic change.
Although I agree with your points. Does a Liverpool crest even need 'Liverpool Football Club'? Wouldn't LFC suffice? BTW, Although I'm impressed with both designs, I prefer your first badge to the second.
@Oakleighman Yeh, the one on the shirt is perfect really and that has L.F.C, but as they want an official crest different to the shirt crest, I've produced this with the shield. As such, the name spelled out looks better. Doesn't matter how big they are, clubs seem to demand this for marketing purposes. Even that minimalist Juventus crest has the full name on it.
