(Another) New AMC Logo!

[maineguy]

I must admit that I don’t get your point, although I’m trying to understand.

Every Natl Park leases out guest facilities operations. Most Natl Forrest’s lease out permits to businesses like river runners, Horse packers and guiding operations.

Is it that AMC as a nonprofit should not be allowed to operate the huts and be replaced with a for profit entity? Is that what you’d prefer ?

Those (for profit) entities that operate in the national park system pay for the right to do so in their lease agreement. Does the AMC pay for the right of the "special permit" that they have from the USFS?

 

[TCD]

I don't usually post in "AMC" threads, as I'm not an AMC member (I'm in the Adirondacks).

But I was taken by the illustration on the AMC site titled "The AMC logo through the decades—in *ALL* its many forms!" (emphasis mine)

Unless I missed it, the stick man was not there. Was that not one of the logo's "many forms?" Strikes me that someone is trying to erase a mistake, in the best "stealth edit" style of modern organizations. Or was the stick man in there somewhere, and I missed it? I looked twice...

 

[KRooney]

I don't usually post in "AMC" threads, as I'm not an AMC member (I'm in the Adirondacks).

But I was taken by the illustration on the AMC site titled "The AMC logo through the decades—in *ALL* its many forms!" (emphasis mine)

Unless I missed it, the stick man was not there. Was that not one of the logo's "many forms?" Strikes me that someone is trying to erase a mistake, in the best "stealth edit" style of modern organizations. Or was the stick man in there somewhere, and I missed it? I looked twice...

"the stick man was not there". That was the logo which was just replaced.

 

[JoshandBaron]

I don't usually post in "AMC" threads, as I'm not an AMC member (I'm in the Adirondacks).

But I was taken by the illustration on the AMC site titled "The AMC logo through the decades—in *ALL* its many forms!" (emphasis mine)

Unless I missed it, the stick man was not there. Was that not one of the logo's "many forms?" Strikes me that someone is trying to erase a mistake, in the best "stealth edit" style of modern organizations. Or was the stick man in there somewhere, and I missed it? I looked twice...

The woman in the orange hard hat lifting a rock has it on her shirt and hat.

 

[Ear Drum]

The woman in the orange hard hat lifting a rock has it on her shirt and hat.

Right, and to add, it's pretty easy to miss it - I'd guess this was intentional in the collage.

 

[Peppersass]

A trend? Looks pretty similar to the new AMC logo.

 

[Puma concolor]

^^^^

AI generated, perhaps? Seems to be a thing with many of these new patches nowadays.

 

[B the Hiker]

First off, they should have left the original logo alone. The replacement for the original was awful, looked like a transgender bathroom sign. This latest version is good, I like it, better than the original? no. The AMC is well........... ahh forget it.

The original logo? Good sir, read the link posted above. There have been quite a few logos over the years.

 

[B the Hiker]

I like the look but it looks like it is not a perfect circle and has some wavy lines where it should not... seems like the sort of thing ChatGPT would make.

According to the link, it was drawn by hand. Seems to be based off the metal badge shown in the history.

 

[B the Hiker]

I would encourage people to read the history found in the link in NHChris's original post. It's quite interesting!

The one thing is that they moved the tree in the forefront from the left to the right. If they had kept it there, it would feel much more like the older versions.

Brian

 

[B the Hiker]

I must admit that I don’t get your point, although I’m trying to understand.

Every Natl Park leases out guest facilities operations. Most Natl Forrest’s lease out permits to businesses like river runners, Horse packers and guiding operations.

Is it that AMC as a nonprofit should not be allowed to operate the huts and be replaced with a for profit entity? Is that what you’d prefer ?

There's nothing wrong with what the AMC does. Every time the AMC comes up, one certain anonymous individual who doesn't post his photo or use his real name feels the need to grind his axe and ruin the the experience of those reading the thread. There are thousands of people hiking, and yet this forum seems to shrink more and more, and it's largely, I think, because of toxic posts like his. If you wonder why the voices here are almost universally male, look at the wording he uses to complain about the fees the AMC assesses.

This is a thread about the AMC's new logo. If anyone has an axe to grind about the AMC, start another thread and take it elsewhere.

 

[Grey J]

Well, at least there seems to be broad agreement that the demise of Stick Man is a welcome change. I thought it was a joke when I first saw it. Interesting point about the lack of female voices on VFTT. Where have all the women gone? I know Wards Girl still posts here. Nordic Gal? Gender is not always apparent from avatar or site name.

 

[TEO]

First off, they should have left the original logo alone. The replacement for the original was awful, looked like a transgender bathroom sign. This latest version is good, I like it, better than the original? no. The AMC is well........... ahh forget it.

While I liked the logos that preceded the stick figure, they were far from the original. In fact, I'm guessing that what you, @sierra, are referring to as the original is this:



This logo, however, was the above's successor and the immediate predecessor to the stick figure:


As for the true original logo, the closest that I can definitively find is from Appalachia, Volume 2, 1879-1881, pub. 1881:

 

[skiguy]

There's nothing wrong with what the AMC does. Every time the AMC comes up, one certain anonymous individual who doesn't post his photo or use his real name feels the need to grind his axe and ruin the the experience of those reading the thread. There are thousands of people hiking, and yet this forum seems to shrink more and more, and it's largely, I think, because of toxic posts like his. If you wonder why the voices here are almost universally male, look at the wording he uses to complain about the fees the AMC assesses.

This is a thread about the AMC's new logo. If anyone has an axe to grind about the AMC, start another thread and take it elsewhere.

Once again coming from the guy who posted this with his deck of virtue cards.

 

[dug]

There's nothing wrong with what the AMC does. Every time the AMC comes up, one certain anonymous individual who doesn't post his photo or use his real name feels the need to grind his axe and ruin the the experience of those reading the thread. There are thousands of people hiking, and yet this forum seems to shrink more and more, and it's largely, I think, because of toxic posts like his. If you wonder why the voices here are almost universally male, look at the wording he uses to complain about the fees the AMC assesses.

This is a thread about the AMC's new logo. If anyone has an axe to grind about the AMC, start another thread and take it elsewhere.

Quite a view up on that high horse, isn't there?

 

[ImYourHuckleberry]

jThere's nothing wrong with what the AMC does. Every time the AMC comes up, one certain anonymous individual who doesn't post his photo or use his real name feels the need to grind his axe and ruin the the experience of those reading the thread. There are thousands of people hiking, and yet this forum seems to shrink more and more, and it's largely, I think, because of toxic posts like his. If you wonder why the voices here are almost universally male, look at the wording he uses to complain about the fees the AMC assesses.

This is a thread about the AMC's new logo. If anyone has an axe to grind about the AMC, start another thread and take it elsewhere.

I think the forum shrunk for two reasons:

1) People couldn't join for years and years without knowing somebody that was already a member. I lurked forever, just as one example
2) Forums in general have been dying off for years, replaced by various social media platforms

Your other points are well taken. Some people just hate the AMC. It's fashionable!

 

[TEO]

There's nothing wrong with what the AMC does.

That's going a bit too far. It would be more accurate to say that the AMC has been and is one of the leading conservation organizations in the northeast and has introduced thousands to the outdoors and educated them. But, that doesn't mean that all that they have done has been good. Whether it is the history of elitism, and anti-semitism and racism among it's earlier members—which my impression is that in the more recent past and currently it is working to address—or ruining Mt. Wachusett's Pine Hill Ski Trail or the unaffordability of the huts to many, the organization is not without flaws.

Once again coming from the guy who posted this with his deck of virtue cards.

I'm assuming that @maineguy's comment was tongue-in-cheek. If it wasn't, then he was asking for it, regardless of whether or not you agreed with the proposed name change.

 

[skiguy]

That's going a bit too far. It would be more accurate to say that the AMC has been and is one of the leading conservation organizations in the northeast and has introduced thousands to the outdoors and educated them. But, that doesn't mean that all that they have done has been good. Whether it is the history of elitism, and anti-semitism and racism among it's earlier members—which my impression is that in the more recent past and currently it is working to address—or ruining Mt. Wachusett's Pine Hill Ski Trail or the unaffordability of the huts to many, the organization is not without flaws.


I'm assuming that @maineguy's comment was tongue-in-cheek. If it wasn't, then he was asking for it, regardless of whether or not you agreed with the proposed name change.

So in one sentence you are denouncing racism and then in another you advocate it because someone deserved it. Seems like a double standard or am I missing something? Ironically that is my main problem with The AMC. Double standards.

 

[sierra]

I think the forum shrunk for two reasons:

1) People couldn't join for years and years without knowing somebody that was already a member. I lurked forever, just as one example
2) Forums in general have been dying off for years, replaced by various social media platforms

Your other points are well taken. Some people just hate the AMC. It's fashionable!

Fashionable? I can assure you, that is NOT the reason there are people who do not support the AMC's mission.

 

[TEO]

So in one sentence you are denouncing racism and then in another you advocate it because someone deserved it. Seems like a double standard or am I missing something. Ironically that is my main problem with The AMC. Double standards.

Dude, give it a rest. You’re missing something. (A white guy calling a white guy a "white guy" isn't in any way remotely related to racism.)

Back on-topic:

You can track the evolution of the AMC's logos via Appalachia. I've been able to find these viewable online:

Volumes 1-27 (1876-1929): https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000506735
Volumes 31, No. 1 – 33, No. 4 (1956-1961): https://archive.org/details/pub_appalachia-journal
Volumes 61, No. 1 – current issue (2009-present): https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/appalachia/

The logo appears unchanged from 1881-1961, based on the above copies of Appalachia. (The online copies of Appalachia, Vol. 1, 1876-1878, published in 1879, do not appear to have an AMC logo.) Furthermore, my 1966, 18th edition of the A.M.C. White Mountain Guide, has the same 1881 logo. By 1976, the AMC logo had changed at least once. Here's the AMC logo in my 1976, 4th edition of the A.M.C. Maine Mountain Guide:


Based on the volumes of Appalachia hosted in Dartmouth's digital commons, the transition from this logo:

to this:

occurred between fall 2014 and spring 2015.

The first of the two green logos above was included on a poster or invitation for the Club's 101st annual meeting on January 22, 1977, so one possibility is that it was created in conjuction with the Club's 100th anniversary in 1976. However, @maineguy says in post #7 of this thread that his AMC patch is over 50 years-old. And would seem to be a simplified scheme of the first of the two green logos above. @maineguy, is it possible that your patch is less than 50 years-old and dates to the 1980s or 1990s?

Going back to what seems to be the original logo, in the AMC's announcement of the new logo, Jenny O'Connell and Amanda Garza write, "AMC archivist Becky Fullerton unearthed previous logos and discovered a few surprises, including the very first club seal from 1884 . . ." We know that the first club seal was created before 1884, because it is used in the volume 2 of Appalachia, published in 1881. So either the AMC's statement is incorrect or it was created and used before 1884, but wasn't officially declared the club seal until 1884.