CSBG Archive
Comic Book Legends Revealed Addendum
Enough people have written in to me about this, including Jim Sherman himself, that I think it’s worth doing an addendum, even though I’ve already amended the original piece (seen here).
So…
COMIC URBAN LEGEND: Comic book artist Jim Sherman designed the logo for Major League Baseball.
STATUS: False
For years, former Legion of Superheroes artist Jim Sherman thought that he had designed the logo for Major League Baseball. He had it on his resume, he gave interviews about it, it was just a given in his life.
Heck, even recently, when stories of other people designing it (like this one about graphic designer Jerry Dior in the Wall Street Journal) were floating around, Sherman was still sure he had done it.
It was not until a recent article by Paul Lukas at ESPN.com that the truth came out, after an initial interview with Lukas where Sherman reiterated that he had designed the logo, the following exchange happened:
Uni Watch: Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
James Sherman: Sixty.
UW: Wow, so you were just 20 years old when you designed the logo.
JS: No, I had to be at least 30.
UW: But the logo was designed in 1968. It had to be, because it debuted in the 1969 season. It was worn on every major league uniform that year.
JS: Really? Then I didn’t do it. I couldn’t have. Are you sure about this?
To show Sherman what I meant, I e-mailed him a few images from 1969, including the cover of the Mets’ yearbook (note the MLB logo at lower-right) and photos showing players wearing the logo on their sleeves or elsewhere. He called me back a few minutes later.
“That’s not my logo, and I was totally unaware that it existed,” he said. “The logo I created was very similar, but I designed it in the early 1980s. All I can say is that I was so sports-unaware that I didn’t know about the earlier logo. I feel like a total idiot now that I didn’t know about it. I’m flabbergasted.”
Once he learned that he had been taking credit for a logo he did not design, Sherman quickly began making the rounds explaining himself, including calling up Jerry Dior a few days ago to clear the air (there were no hard feelings involved) and contacting anyone else who had covered the story, including me.
Sherman felt it was important to get it out there, because he did not want people to think of him as taking credit for work he did not do.
According to Sherman, he was contacted to do a logo for Major League Baseball, and he handed in three submissions – all silhouettes. Major League Baseball then sent him back pencil sketches of Dior’s design, which Sherman thought was an acceptance of one of his silhouetted designs, just with client specifications (you know, move the arm in, raise the helmet, etc.)
Sherman was not a sports fan, and at the time, the logo was not used too often – only upon the boom of licensing in the mid-to-late 80s has the logo become a really big deal, so the original was not familiar to Sherman, and since there not only was no publicity about who designed the logo, there specifically was NOTHING about who designed the logo – that’s how logo design goes – you get an assignment, you do it, you get paid and that’s it. Artists do not even know if their work is used by the company until they actually see it in circulation.
And when the licensing boom of the 80s did hit, Sherman saw his logo in circulation, and thought it was his design.
It was not, it was Jerry Dior’s design, which he did (as mentioned by Lukas above) back in 1968, for Major League Baseball’s 100th Anniversary in 1969.
However, do note that Sherman’s logo IS in circulation, it just is not as popular as Dior’s original.
Here is Dior’s original…
And here is Sherman’s redesign (what he thought for over two decades to be THE design)…
So there ya go!
Thanks to Jim Sherman and Paul Lukas for the information! And thanks to Roel Torres (of the Hardball Times, which is a nifty site!), Michael Grabois and John Chidley-Hill (John, expect an answer to your other legend question within the next few weeks) who sent me links to Lukas’ article!
33 Comments
MarkBlack
November 6, 2008 at 6:57 am
Huge baseball fan, so this is a pretty interesting story. I love the fact that Jim Sherman made sure to clear the air, kind of a classy gesture on his part.
Great legend Brian!
eRIC
November 6, 2008 at 7:30 am
I know it’s not comic-related per se, but Paul Lukas’ column is regularly fantastic. He has a blog (uniwatchblog.com) that updates daily as well. Interesting stuff.
Matthew E
November 6, 2008 at 8:25 am
I may be partially responsible for getting this out in the open: it was me who pointed out the Sherman connection in the comments thread to the link on (hugely popular baseball blog-behemoth) Baseball Think Factory to an article about Dior.
Anthony Strand
November 6, 2008 at 8:46 am
How is that even a redesign? It has, like, some softened edges.
Greg Hatcher
November 6, 2008 at 9:12 am
Just wanted to chime in on what a classy thing that is for Sherman to do. I’ve had credit TAKEN from me on things a lot less well-known than this, and it’s galling, but the usual position is to just smolder and let it pass, because it’s so hard to correct things and makes you look petulant. A lot of freelancers I know would take advantage of that tendency in a case like this, and just quietly let the mistake stand and then if they were caught, smile and brush it off with, “Oh, yeah, actually it turns out that…” You know, not actually LYING, but not going out of their way to correct people either.
Sherman going out of his way to talk to people who published stories months and years ago is very, very cool.
Apodaca
November 6, 2008 at 9:27 am
Yeah, that’s barely a redesign. A pointier nose, more stark corners on the armpit and elbow, and a rounded shoulder.
It’s like he just altered whatever he could without changing the silhouette.
Ariel S.
November 6, 2008 at 9:34 am
What a nice gesture by Mr. Sherman! If only all people could have that moral compass…
Dan Bailey
November 6, 2008 at 10:44 am
Matthew E –
So at least two of us post on BTF, eh?
Jim MacLeod
November 6, 2008 at 10:48 am
I’m curious to see the three designs that Sherman originally submitted.
Having worked in sports apparel for a few years, I’m a big fan of the UniWatch.
DoubleWide
November 6, 2008 at 10:52 am
Its nice to see someone own up to his mistakes. Many would deny the truth even when confronted with the facts, like many politicians.
Matthew E
November 6, 2008 at 11:03 am
Dan: I’d be surprised if it was only two.
The Mad Monkey
November 6, 2008 at 11:04 am
*thumping on the ground*
Hey, Bob Kane! Did you get all that down there?!
Jeremy Bear
November 6, 2008 at 11:14 am
Ultimate swipe.
(Bah dump bump.)
billso
November 6, 2008 at 11:26 am
Yeah, I saw this on uniwatchblog.com and Paul’s Page 2 column at espn.com. I read both regularly – they’re a lot of fun. They didn’t have a copy of Sherman’s logo, though.
todd young
November 6, 2008 at 1:54 pm
WAITAMINNT…something isn’t kosher here…
like a a lot of people noticed it’s the same logo, but with some rounded corners…it’s not just similar…its virtually identical…
Now what are the astronomical odds that, him not being a sports fan and having no idea the previous logo existed, that he would create something that is, down to the bumps on the hand holding the bat that close to something he’s never seen before?
That just seems too suspicious…or did i read something incorrectly…
Barry Hutchison
November 6, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Whoa! That’s not a redesign. That can’t be a coincidence. Sherman is saying he designed that logo from scratch, right? Surely he just blatantly copied the old one?
Or am I missing something?
Barry Hutchison
November 6, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Wow, I seem to have just “Done a Sherman” on Todd’s post …
Barry Hutchison
November 6, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Completely by accident, I should add. He must’ve posted while I was reading the article. Quite eerily similar, though. Maybe the logos WERE just a coincidence after all.
Nah!
George M.
November 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm
If you read the article closely, he says that he submitted several silhouette designs, and was sent back a sketch that was similar to one of his submissions, which he took to indicate changes that needed to be made to his design. I assume that this means that he then resubmitted the logo with those changes in place, and so, since we only see the final published logo, it IS almost identical because he changed it based on what he thought was editorial mandate.
Brian Cronin
November 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm
George is correct – the reason it is practically identical is because MLB sent him back Dior’s design and said “that’s what we want you to draw,” so Sherman drew that (only not EXACTLY that, as, well, that’d be weird).
For years, he thought they were accepting HIS silhouette design and asking him to change it to their specifications, but in actuality, they were showing him Dior’s design, which they basically just wanted updated. So Sherman then essentially copied Dior and MLB accepted the redesign, paid him for it and then used it publicly along with the other very similar looking logo, so there was no way for Sherman to know it wasn’t his design.
Apodaca
November 6, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Ah, okay. Now I get it.
Anthony Strand
November 6, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Yes. I, too, get it now.
John Chidley-Hill
November 6, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Whoo! My name in print! Always exciting.
I definitely agree with all that was said about Jerry Sherman above…. he definitely did the classy thing. It’s clear in the Uni Watch post that he was quite embarrassed and immediately rushed to correct the misinformation.
Jerry Sherman is definitely a gentleman.
And Brian, that’s great to hear about that other legend… I’m excited to see what, if anything, you have turned up!
sgt rawk
November 6, 2008 at 5:51 pm
@ John – *whispering* It’s, uh, Jim Sherman. Not Jerry.
Great legend! More Kirby legends, please. END COMMUNICATION!
Todd Spangrud
November 6, 2008 at 5:56 pm
The image is that of Minnesota Twin great Harmon Killebrew.Can’t believe I was the first to mention this.But,the Killer is a legend and deserves this honor.No steroids here,Baby!!
John Chidley-Hill
November 6, 2008 at 9:32 pm
@ Sgt. Rawk
My bad… I’ve had a long day.
Jim McLauchlin
November 6, 2008 at 10:03 pm
The MLB logo is based on a photo of Harmon Killebrew. Similarly, the NBA logo is also based on a player photo, that of Jerry West.
Jim McLauchlin
Matthew E
November 6, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Actually I read something recently that said it *wasn’t* Killebrew. I forget where I saw it.
Matt Beahan
November 7, 2008 at 4:30 am
Jerry Dior himself said that the silhouette wasn’t based on any particular player…
Dan Bailey
November 7, 2008 at 6:38 am
>>Actually I read something recently that said it *wasn’t* Killebrew. I forget where I saw it.
Saw that myself on BTF a few weeks back. Since Killebrew was my favorite player when I was a kid, though, I’m ignoring it.
Craig Zedalis
November 7, 2008 at 8:32 pm
So MLB paid Sherman to redraw their already existing logo? I’m available if they need it “updated” for the 21st century.
MLB LOGO INSIDER
November 7, 2008 at 11:57 pm
JAMES SHERMAN IS A COMPLETE PHONY SHERMAN’S STORY IS ALL DOUBLETALK. HE IS JUST TRYING TO COVER HIS ASS WHO WOULD HIRE A COMIC ARTIST TO TWEAK THE GREATEST LOGO IN SPORTS THERE WAS NO REDESIGN . SHERMAN IS A LIAR THINKING HE COULD CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE LOGO THAT NOBODY WAS SURE WHOM DESIGNED GUESS WHAT DIOR DESIGNED IT 100% I’VE KNOW THIS FOR YEARS SHAME ON YOU JAMES SHERMAN BRIAN THE REDESIGN PORTION OF YOUR STORY IS NONSENSE, SHERMAN IS JUST COVERING UP OR DOING WHAT HIS LAWYER SAYS PERIOD SEE YA AT THE BALLGAME BOYS WEAR THE LOGO PROUD KNOWING THE TRUE DESIGNER HAS BEEN FOUND. NOW GIVE THE GUY SOME YANKEE TICKETS!!!!!!!!
Ernie...just Ernie
November 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I agree Sherman’s story makes little sense. Here is his quote from uniwatch :
“I submitted a number of sketches, based on outlines of Yogi Berra, Ted Williams, and Mickey Mantle, and then they came back to me with a sketch they liked,” he said. “It wasn’t exactly the same as what I had submitted, but it was close enough to mine that I just assumed the art director at the time was making his own modification, which happens most of the time anyway.”
So he’s essentially claiming MLB paid him 100,000 to do re-create a logo that had already been created for them 10-12 years earlier? No chance this is true. Zero. I’m willing to give him benefit of doubt that he’s simply mis-remembering the events, ie, perhaps he was working on some project to create a new logo incorporating the existing Dior design into a larger design (such as a World Series logo), and his memory confused the details. But it sounds an awful lot like the man got busted when hit with the age question, and suddenly changed his tune.
Also, where did the alleged Sherman logo posted above come from? For those familiar with sports logos, its not uncommon for a team/ league to have 3-6 variations of a logo in circulation, which aren’t necessarily unique “designs”. Saying it is in “circulation” is not conclusive evidence of anything. See pics of Yankees and Tigers logos for reference
http://static.flickr.com/115/277761353_1d478cc6f1_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/88/277761379_575db3ff23_o.jpg