New Badge - The Robin is Back...or is it? Post #292 onwards!

[Cowshed]

30 minutes ago, ooRya said:

Think the club should just use this one.

Now that would stand out from everyone else..............

According to a few a Robin would not make the club different. That gives that argument a kicking.

 

 

[Redsox]

Not a fan due to it being such a common nickname, particularly with other local clubs. Stick with the bridge or the crest

[ZiderEyed]

If the club chuck this out the window eventually we could always go back to our original nickname of the Garabaldians and have an Italian revolutionary in a red shirt as our badge. That'd stand out.

[Leveller]

1 hour ago, Woodsy said:

That's the reason it looks so ******* cool
Everything was cooler in the 80s, fact. Don't even @ me

New Romantics - cool or cultural desert?

1970s please.

[BS4 on Tour...]

56 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

That's the critical point for me, too - which is why I prefer the coat of arms!

There's only one city of Bristol but several clubs calling themselves 'The Robins' which means it doesn't differentiate us from Cheltenham or bloody Swindon. 

The coat of arms has also been the badge of the gas and Gloucestershire CCC so it’s not unique to us...and doesn’t differentiate us from those two clubs...

[BS4 on Tour...]

45 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

I hear you, MM

Have Swindon ever used a robin for their badge? I don't remember one in my time? I quite like what Cheltenham done with their badge 10 years or so ago

Swindon’s current badge has a Robin on it - albeit a small one - they’ve had that badge for the last 10 years

[Leveller]

4 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

The coat of arms has also been the badge of the gas and Gloucestershire CCC so it’s not unique to us...and doesn’t differentiate us from those two clubs...

But we have been wearing the coat of arms since 1901 and only briefly used the robin in 1949 for a while then 1976-94. So we’ve been wearing the coat of arms for 24 years since the robin was scrapped, and overall for far longer.

In terms of our history and tradition, the coat of arms wins hands down - but because OTIB contains a lot of people who were around 1976-94, their feelings don’t reflect that.

[Spike]

2 hours ago, handsofclay said:

You said that you went along with what the club's decision was and the club chose 1897 (not 1987 as you state in your reply here) as you stated that there was no point in arguing about it because the club had decided that and any designer that they engaged would be told to use that year so you stated that it was in effect pointless to argue with it.

 

1987 is a typo, I did say 1897 originally as seen in my badge. 
Bs4 on Tour said: "Nice effort....but ‘1894’....."
My reply was: "I know the club was founded in 1894 but it didn't enter the league system until 1897 which is probably why they use that as our "established date", but like I said, the club uses 1897, hence I used it."

a few people had their say about the year (including yourself)to which I replied: 

Quote

As I said, it's not my debate to be had, as I said before, I used the number the club itself uses. If you have an issue with that take it up with them, arguing with me isn't going to change the year they use. If a designer makes a new badge he'll use the year the club tells him to use, if they're currently using 1897 then that's what they'll more than likely put on any new badge they create too.

Read it again, "it's not my debate to be had" and "if you have an issue with that take it up with the club".
With regards to my comment about the designer, it's a hypothetical situation, not an actual one.

2 hours ago, handsofclay said:

However, surely if the club have decided to use the robin and suspension bridge badge it means that any designer engaged to design it will be told to use that, so applying your same logic, it is pointless arguing about it. Yet, a day later you are doing exactly what you accused those of us against 1897 of doing!! I'm confused.

1

This is an actual decision, not a hypothetical as above and nor am I arguing about what they've chosen to use, I've shared my personal opinion that I do not like it and that I would have prefered a modern re-design. How exactly am I arguing with the clubs decision? By saying I won't buy memorabilia/ kits? Again that is my personal choice and I am not forcing anyone to follow in my footsteps.

2 hours ago, handsofclay said:

Btw, when I argue a point with someone I at least do not stoop to the juvenile reaction of awarding them a rubbish icon as you have done with mine. Indeed, yesterday I had the good grace to praise one of your designs, ignoring the year, and that still stands today. Indeed, all I ever do is award positive reaction. I have never awarded negative reaction for people just expressing their views. There is enough negativity without adding to it.

Why did I rubbish your post? Because it was a rubbish post instigating an argument that was unnecessary via misinformation. You accused me of stating the clubs foundation date of 1897, which I did not do. As I explained multiple times, I used the date that the club used, not that I agreed with it but in all likelihood, it would be the most likely date to be used. At no point did I say it was correct.

Also, you can call my juvenile for using the icon system but that is what it's there for. I've had plenty of people rubbish my posts, even "snake" them, I don't call them out or whine about it because I couldn't care less what others think about me on a personal level. If you feel I owe you something for praise then simply retract the praise, I don't care at all about conditional praise either. 
Now we can carry on this argument that you provoked or we can drop it, your call.

[handsofclay]

3 minutes ago, Leveller said:

But we have been wearing the coat of arms since 1901 and only briefly used the robin in 1949 for a while then 1976-94. So we’ve been wearing the coat of arms for 24 years since the robin was scrapped, and overall for far longer.

In terms of our history and tradition, the coat of arms wins hands down - but because OTIB contains a lot of people who were around 1976-94, their feelings don’t reflect that.

I'm not aware of City having a badge on their shirt as early as 1901. The earliest I believe, although I could be wrong, was the 1909 cup final when we had the coat of arms of Bristol on a blue shirt. 

I am pretty sure that both periods we have been in the top flight we had a robin on our shirt. Definitely 1976-80 and there's a fair chance that between 1906-1911 that in all the times Mrs Wedlock or other players wives hung out the washing in the days before tumble driers that Mrs Wedlock etc said 'Hey, Billy, come and look at this. There's a robin on your shirt'. Surely, that must've happened at least once!

[Leveller]

10 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

I'm not aware of City having a badge on their shirt as early as 1901. The earliest I believe, although I could be wrong, was the 1909 cup final when we had the coat of arms of Bristol on a blue shirt. 

I am pretty sure that both periods we have been in the top flight we had a robin on our shirt. Definitely 1976-80 and there's a fair chance that between 1906-1911 that in all the times Mrs Wedlock or other players wives hung out the washing in the days before tumble driers that Mrs Wedlock etc said 'Hey, Billy, come and look at this. There's a robin on your shirt'. Surely, that must've happened at least once!

I got my info from www.historicalkits.co.uk - I can’t say for certain they’re correct, but no reason to doubt it.

[handsofclay]

6 minutes ago, Spike said:

1987 is a typo, I did say 1897 originally as seen in my badge. 
Bs4 on Tour said: "Nice effort....but ‘1894’....."
My reply was: "I know the club was founded in 1894 but it didn't enter the league system until 1897 which is probably why they use that as our "established date", but like I said, the club uses 1897, hence I used it."

a few people had their say about the year (including yourself)to which I replied: 

Read it again, "it's not my debate to be had" and "if you have an issue with that take it up with the club".
With regards to my comment about the designer, it's a hypothetical situation, not an actual one.

This is an actual decision, not a hypothetical as above and nor am I arguing about what they've chosen to use, I've shared my personal opinion that I do not like it and that I would have prefered a modern re-design. How exactly am I arguing with the clubs decision? By saying I won't buy memorabilia/ kits? Again that is my personal choice and I am not forcing anyone to follow in my footsteps.

Why did I rubbish your post? Because it was a rubbish post instigating an argument that was unnecessary via misinformation. You accused me of stating the clubs foundation date of 1897, which I did not do. As I explained multiple times, I used the date that the club used, not that I agreed with it but in all likelihood, it would be the most likely date to be used. At no point did I say it was correct.

Also, you can call my juvenile for using the icon system but that is what it's there for. I've had plenty of people rubbish my posts, even "snake" them, I don't call them out or whine about it because I couldn't care less what others think about me on a personal level. If you feel I owe you something for praise then simply retract the praise, I don't care at all about conditional praise either. 
Now we can carry on this argument that you provoked or we can drop it, your call.

I cannot be arsed, you have shown your true colours using juvenile icons. Hey, you know what, I could do that too and rubbish every single post you've ever placed on here. But, you know what, I'm a bit more grown up than to do that and as I've stated, I haven't used any rubbish icons and never intend to. You do what you want, but don't forget to put all your crayons away after. I only debate issues with people on an adult level.

[handsofclay]

5 minutes ago, Leveller said:

I got my info from www.historicalkits.co.uk - I can’t say for certain they’re correct, but no reason to doubt it.

Fair enough, as I've stated, I'm not sure but I will check photos of the era and get back to you.

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

I cannot be arsed, you have shown your true colours using juvenile icons. Hey, you know what, I could do that too and rubbish every single post you've ever placed on here. But, you know what, I'm a bit more grown up than to do that and as I've stated, I haven't used any rubbish icons and never intend to. You do what you want, but don't forget to put all your crayons away after. I only debate issues with people on an adult level.

I guess anyone who uses the icons for their purpose are juvenile then? 
Feel free to do just that, I honestly couldn't care less.

Also taking the moral high ground of calling yourself "grown up" and calling someone Juvenile loses it's weight when you add a childish comment such as "but don't forget to put your crayons away after"....
  
 

[handsofclay]

13 minutes ago, Leveller said:

I got my info from www.historicalkits.co.uk - I can’t say for certain they’re correct, but no reason to doubt it.

I've looked at all the team photos from 1901 to 1914 and some action pics of that period and we never sported a badge of any kind, except, of course, the 1909 final. Indeed, it seems that hardly any clubs sported badges during that era. So I would say the historical kits people have got it wrong.

I believe I am also correct in stating that the 1909 final was the first time Manchester United sported a badge too, the red rose of Lancashire.

[Leveller]

13 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

I've looked at all the team photos from 1901 to 1914 and some action pics of that period and we never sported a badge of any kind, except, of course, the 1909 final. Indeed, it seems that hardly any clubs sported badges during that era. So I would say the historical kits people have got it wrong.

I believe I am also correct in stating that the 1909 final was the first time Manchester United sported a badge too, the red rose of Lancashire.

The website seems pretty sure we wore it from 1901-03 but It makes little difference to the logic of my post .

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, Woodsy said:

Everything was cooler in the 80s, fact.

Including us free-falling through the leagues faster than Tom Petty?

[YorkshireSection]

5 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Also great news for Bristol's tattoo artists 

Not just Bristol artists, I've had a couple done up here.

[Phileas Fogg]

Is it just me, or is debating whether we were formed in 1897 or 1894 or whenever a totally boring and pointless debate?

I genuinely couldn’t care less which year we were formed in and I have always been bemused as to why people debate it so fervently! 

[YorkshireSection]

3 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Is it just me, or is debating whether we were formed in 1897 or 1894 or whenever a totally boring and pointless debate?

I genuinely couldn’t care less which year we were formed in and I have always been bemused as to why people debate it so fervently! 

It's one of those debates where there is no right or wrong, both dates are as correct as they are wrong.

[ZiderEyed]

4 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Is it just me, or is debating whether we were formed in 1897 or 1894 or whenever a totally boring and pointless debate?

I genuinely couldn’t care less which year we were formed in and I have always been bemused as to why people debate it so fervently! 

Agreed.

 

 

 

It's still 1894 though 

[phantom]

1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Swindon’s current badge has a Robin on it - albeit a small one - they’ve had that badge for the last 10 years

 

[Up The City!]

As someone who’s only ever known the crest I’m pleased with this however I would have preferred an updated version of the badge. I don’t like how Bristol City is written.

I don’t understand why people are suggesting it will be on the 3rd kit only? I’m pretty sure there would be some sort of regulations preventing that from happening? Look at the hassle we had about having the hashtags on the kits, can’t see the EFL allowing us to have two separate badges on separate kits.

[exAtyeoMax]

51 minutes ago, phantom said:

 

it looks like a beer label

[ZiderEyed]

52 minutes ago, phantom said:

 

Good lord that is an awful badge. Even Swindle are using da famus quarterzzzzz

[Olé]

56 minutes ago, phantom said:

 

Possibly the only crest in English football that looks like it was the result of a school project.

[sglosbcfc]

6 minutes ago, Olé said:

Possibly the only crest in English football that looks like it was the result of a school project.

They could replace their robin with a tax man.

[Leveller]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

 

Now are we SURE 1879 is right?

[Reigate Red]

Personally I prefer the crest as too many teams are nicknamed the robins. I also like the fact that the gas do not have the Bristol crest so that only we are specifically identified with the city of Bristol.

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, Reigate Red said:

Personally I prefer the crest as too many teams are nicknamed the robins. I also like the fact that the gas do not have the Bristol crest so that only we are specifically identified with the city of Bristol.

Plus Bristol Manor Farm already have the suspension bridge in theirs, can't be copying a Southern League team.

 

[Leveller]

2 hours ago, handsofclay said:

I've looked at all the team photos from 1901 to 1914 and some action pics of that period and we never sported a badge of any kind, except, of course, the 1909 final. Indeed, it seems that hardly any clubs sported badges during that era. So I would say the historical kits people have got it wrong.

I believe I am also correct in stating that the 1909 final was the first time Manchester United sported a badge too, the red rose of Lancashire.

The 1901/2 and 1902/3 team pictures in David Woods’ “The Bristol Babe” clearly show a badge on the shirts, though it then disappears. So I would say the various websites that state this are indeed correct.