Vintage Goldy is OUT

everybody knows my name

Freakishly Hyperintelligent
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
488
Points
83
I tried to buy some vintage Goldy-themed merchandise this weekend and I was told that modern Goldy is IN and vintage Goldy is OUT. The retailer's rep told me in definite terms that the U has forbidden any new vintage Goldy merchandise to be introduced, and they had to grovel for permission to sell out the stuff they already had in stock.

I thought that, if true, it was a curious and interesting decision on the part of the U.
 

That's too bad. I love vintage Goldy merch.

Go Gophers!!
 

That's an odd choice. A lot of other schools offer vintage logos and etc.
 

I had the same problem. I prefer vintage Goldy by a landslide.
 

Doesn't the Women's Hockey team use a vintage version?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Doesn't the Women's Hockey team use a vintage version?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was thinking the same thing. Pretty sure I just saw highlights last night and they have large vintage Goldy skating on the front wearing a headband.
 

I was thinking the same thing. Pretty sure I just saw highlights last night and they have large vintage Goldy skating on the front wearing a headband.

Yes, Hockey Goldy seems to be a whole different critter. He doesn't look like Vintage Goldy or Modern Goldy, and he wears what looks like a jock on his head. Some things are hard to explain to fans of rival schools.
 







I bought some vintage Goldy stuff at the U of M bookstore in Coffman last week. They even had banners showing Goldy over the years for sale. Can't imagine why they wouldn't want to allow that to be sold. I am of the age where the vintage Goldy (1960's version) is the one I knew as a kid. If this is true, it really is a dumb decision on the part of some marketing person at the U.
 




Could it be a copyright thing?
 

Time to find a screenprinter that will make them for you.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
 

Could it be a copyright thing?

Who other than University would owned rights to the logo?

Oh.....and look online. You'll find buttloads. Ebay is always a great place to look.
 


Sounds like an excuse to sell you something different because they didn't have anything you wanted in stock.
 

Who other than University would owned rights to the logo?

Oh.....and look online. You'll find buttloads. Ebay is always a great place to look.

Like what I'm saying is what if their Goldy Logo copyright didn't cover vintage Goldy? Could that have been it?
 

Like what I'm saying is what if their Goldy Logo copyright didn't cover vintage Goldy? Could that have been it?
I just can't think they anyone else would own the copyright to that logo either.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

I just can't think they anyone else would own the copyright to that logo either.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I mean, that's the point. They don't own the copyright, so they can't stop people from using that logo as they please. Rather than try to gain that copyright they just decided to stop officially using that logo. Just a theory. If your using a logo, you want to be able to control who does what with that logo.

Without that logo they can't prevent people from using it to make more eyes without their permission, or they don't get a cut of that profit, so rather than officially support that maybe their trying to nip the bud?
 


I dunno, my copyright theory was just a theory as to why there would be a sudden change. If they just didn't like the vintage Goldy I would think they would phase it out slowly.

I think no one owns the copyright to vintage Goldy, and rather than deal with the process of acquiring it, or hoping no one else does, they just want to stop using vintage Goldy in an official manner. Who knows.
 

I mean, that's the point. They don't own the copyright, so they can't stop people from using that logo as they please. Rather than try to gain that copyright they just decided to stop officially using that logo. Just a theory. If your using a logo, you want to be able to control who does what with that logo.

Without that logo they can't prevent people from using it to make more eyes without their permission, or they don't get a cut of that profit, so rather than officially support that maybe their trying to nip the bud?

First, it's a trademark, not a copyright. Second, how are you so sure that they don't have that old logo trademarked? I highly doubt that they want third parties selling Gophers merchandise without seeing any of the profit. It makes no sense.
 


^This only proves that they still have merchandise in stock. It doesn't prove that the U is still authorizing the production of new merchandise.

Listen, I'm not saying that what the guy told me is 100% true, only that that's what he said. Take it with a grain of salt, but wait and see whether you can buy vintage Goldy stuff a few months from now.
 

First, it's a trademark, not a copyright. Second, how are you so sure that they don't have that old logo trademarked? I highly doubt that they want third parties selling Gophers merchandise without seeing any of the profit. It makes no sense.

My bad, I was never good with the difference between that stuff. Pardon my incorrect term. If I made it seem like I'm sure they don't have the trademark, my bad, I'm not; I was just posing it as an option. I don't know what else would cause them to so suddenly be like "No vintage Goldy" instead of phasing it out over time.

Maybe they thought Vintage Goldy fell under the regular Goldy Trademark and the Trademark Office recently was like "No it doesn't?". I'm purely speculating at this point.

Whether its Trademark or something else, IMO, something else is at play here that is more than just "We don't want to use it anymore". What that is, I don't know.
 

My bad, I was never good with the difference between that stuff. Pardon my incorrect term. If I made it seem like I'm sure they don't have the trademark, my bad, I'm not; I was just posing it as an option. I don't know what else would cause them to so suddenly be like "No vintage Goldy" instead of phasing it out over time.

Maybe they thought Vintage Goldy fell under the regular Goldy Trademark and the Trademark Office recently was like "No it doesn't?". I'm purely speculating at this point.

Whether its Trademark or something else, IMO, something else is at play here that is more than just "We don't want to use it anymore". What that is, I don't know.

I honestly don't know. But the costs to keep a trademark on that logo is a sliver of a drop in the bucket. Hell.....I could afford to trademark it if they let it go. Holding onto it if they plan to discontinue vintage goldy gear (which doesn't make any sense to me), would at least keep third parties from using it without permission.
 

I'm not an expert on these matters but it occurs to me that maybe the U has come to realize that what has been sold as "vintage" items are not actually vintage but are "replicas", instead. A vintage '65 Ford Mustang was built in 1965 by Ford. A replica is not the same and collectors of true vintage Mustangs would likely be very upset if Ford or anyone else ever chose to sell replicas. Especially if they called them vintage cars.

It may also be true that market forces indicate that the U can make more money selling items that have future collectible value than they were making by selling short production-run replicas.
 

Maybe it's like the McRib, where they only have it for a while to keep the demand for it strong. Or it could just be bumbling by the marketing department, but what are the odds of that? Continuing to license products with an old logo helps preserve the trademark.
 

I'm not an expert on these matters but it occurs to me that maybe the U has come to realize that what has been sold as "vintage" items are not actually vintage but are "replicas", instead. A vintage '65 Ford Mustang was built in 1965 by Ford. A replica is not the same and collectors of true vintage Mustangs would likely be very upset if Ford or anyone else ever chose to sell replicas. Especially if they called them vintage cars.

It may also be true that market forces indicate that the U can make more money selling items that have future collectible value than they were making by selling short production-run replicas.

I don't want to quibble over semantics, but this post completely misses the point gets lost on a tangent.

They weren't marketing Vintage Goldy stuff as old hats, old shirts, old flags, etc etc. They were not selling replicas of old merchandise. They were marketing new stuff with the character "Vintage Goldy" on it, and now, according to one retailer, they are no longer doing that.
 




Top Bottom