_RH_

does the Colts' striping inconsistency bother you?

Recommended Posts

As a general preference, I prefer helmet and pants stripes to match while sleve and sock stripes to match. That can mean either it's one consistent pattern or two different patterns, like the Bears and Steelers. In regards to the Colts, it used to bother me but it doesn't anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with the Bears is that the home jersey and road jerseys have two entirely different striping patterns, not that they don’t match the pants. The road jersey is much closer to the pants, though, and a few small changes would make them match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 10:03 AM, andrewharrington said:

It just works for them, and I quite like it. The neutral color gives your eyes a little rest (as opposed to the common technique of cramming color into every spot you can fit it), and it actually allows the team colors to stand out more, in my opinion.

For me, the gray does not give my eyes a rest.  It sticks out like a sore thumb.  Gray masks on helmets for teams with no gray/silver almost always have that impact on me.  This is especially true for the Colts, who already had a blue mask and made the switch to gray as a lone change.

 

Regarding the actual issue in the thread, I sometimes think that "matching stripes" can be overdone.  For example, the 1980s Patriots (http://www.gridiron-uniforms.com/GUD/images/1990_NewEngland.png).  Every single stripe pattern was meant to be red/white/blue/white/red.  So on the red jersey/pants, it essentially showed up as three stripes.  But on the helmet and white jersey/pants, it showed up as five.  To me the "match" would have been if they just used the three stripes each and every time.  In fact, I don't think I'd recognize all of this as "matching" if I'd never come to this board. When I was a kid, I remember thinking "they use extra stripes on the white jersey vs. the red."

 

Of course, by any definition, the Colts don't match.  I guess that I'm OK with that.  In hindsight, it would perhaps have made more sense to give them a double-stripe on the helmet (like the Jets).  (But then wouldn't some of you be insisting that the blue jersey have white/blue/white/blue/ white on the shoulder to match the helmet?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

The issue with the Bears is that the home jersey and road jerseys have two entirely different striping patterns, not that they don’t match the pants. The road jersey is much closer to the pants, though, and a few small changes would make them match.

 

I have no problem with the different striping schemes for home versus away. But I’m a Blackhawks fan, so what do I know.

 

1413868628169

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

The issue with the Bears is that the home jersey and road jerseys have two entirely different striping patterns, not that they don’t match the pants. The road jersey is much closer to the pants, though, and a few small changes would make them match.

I've never felt like home and road jerseys need to match at all.. they're literally the least likely uniform elements to be worn simultaneously by the team during a game.. also, depending on how you view striping patterns, they both have 3 stripes that are evenly spaced apart.. home jersey has 3 orange stripes with thin white outlines, while the road jersey has 2 blue stripes with an orange between them.. 

Sure, you could make a strong argument that the road jersey is 5 stripes (b/w/o/w/b), and the home jersey is a whopping 11!!! (w/o/w/b/w/o/w/b/w/o/w).. 

(And for ordering purposes and truly accurate verbal descriptions, I'd agree with the latter), but as far as the basic aesthetic idea goes, for all intents and purposes, each jersey features a 3-stripe pattern, so that's consistent in my book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

For me, the gray does not give my eyes a rest.  It sticks out like a sore thumb.  Gray masks on helmets for teams with no gray/silver almost always have that impact on me.  This is especially true for the Colts, who already had a blue mask and made the switch to gray as a lone change.

 

Regarding the actual issue in the thread, I sometimes think that "matching stripes" can be overdone.  For example, the 1980s Patriots (http://www.gridiron-uniforms.com/GUD/images/1990_NewEngland.png).  Every single stripe pattern was meant to be red/white/blue/white/red.  So on the red jersey/pants, it essentially showed up as three stripes.  But on the helmet and white jersey/pants, it showed up as five.  To me the "match" would have been if they just used the three stripes each and every time.  In fact, I don't think I'd recognize all of this as "matching" if I'd never come to this board. When I was a kid, I remember thinking "they use extra stripes on the white jersey vs. the red."

 

Of course, by any definition, the Colts don't match.  I guess that I'm OK with that.  In hindsight, it would perhaps have made more sense to give them a double-stripe on the helmet (like the Jets).  (But then wouldn't some of you be insisting that the blue jersey have white/blue/white/blue/ white on the shoulder to match the helmet?)

I agree with everything you said, but to comment on the colts, you could argue that the helmet matches the blue jersey (blue center stripe), which matches the pants (double stripe).. so they match in my book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything doesn't need to match perfectly between home and road, but there should be enough similarities to suggest that it's the same team. What you never want is the mid-2000s Ottawa Senators, where the team wore traditional white sweaters with block letters, block numbers, and the team's actual logo, but then crazy red sweaters with swooshes, Serpentine letters and numbers, and a 2XTREME ANGRY 3-D version of their logo. Or, back in football, a situation where you're associated with a certain primary color and wear it at home but then go on the road and wear a different primary color instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A uniform's strength lies within the entirety of the uniform.. it's value should be greater than the sum of its parts.. for example, I'm a fan of the Giants' uniforms.. the fact that the road numbers are red doesn't detract from the 90% blue helmet and general feel that they're a "blue" team.. in the Bears' example, I don't think they're different enough to not belong to the same team.. both use a 3-stripe pattern with "empty" spaces between the 3 stripes.. they just modify the presentation of the stripes slightly from one jersey to the next.. not unlike the Blackhawks jerseys mentioned above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

Sure, you could make a strong argument that the road jersey is 5 stripes (b/w/o/w/b), and the home jersey is a whopping 11!!! (w/o/w/b/w/o/w/b/w/o/w).

 

This is what I see when I look at Chicago’s uniforms. Not to say the Bears’ jerseys look bad as they are, but I’d rather see consistency between the home and road sets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mingjai said:

 

The Bears have a similar problem with their pants. They could easily remedy it on their white pants by adding narrow white stripes between the blue and orange stripes and on the blue pants by reversing the orange and white and playing with the widths. But like the Colts’ look, it doesn’t bother me because it’s been going on for so long.

 

mackjpg-d514e79066083edf.jpg

 

usatsi_11307338.jpg

 

82886453.0.jpg

 

I think this works on the Bears’ home set because the scale and pattern of the stripe designs are different enough to be distinct from one another. Chicago’s uniform is chaos if you look at the individual elements, but each unique stripe or trim combination has something else to coordinates with. As a result, it really works when you put it all together. Names/numbers/GSH are white with orange trim, Logo and sleeve/sock stripes are orange with white trim (in the same scale), and the thick pant stripe works well with the blue helmet, jersey and socks. Adding white to the pants stripe, while it would “match” the sleeves, would create a new problem (two of the same pattern in different scales rarely look right together) and personally, I think it would look too matchy.

 

The road uniform, however, is a tougher thing to put together. The sleeve and sock stripes throw a wrench into things because they’re not handled the way you’d expect (based on the design of the home jersey). The main issue for me is the pant stripe. I think it carries a little too much orange to coordinate with the rest of the other elements. It also lacks the contrast of the sleeve and sock stripes (the orange kinda blends into the blue when they touch), and it’s too thick to coordinate with the delicate numbers and helmet logo. Flipping the orange and white solves those problems pretty well, though, as the orange stripe flanked by white on the blue pants works with the sleeve and sock stripes in both color/pattern and scale.

 

The helmet logo is kinda off on its own in the context of the road uniform, but I still think it looks okay. From a design perspective, the only thing you could do to get it all perfectly unified would be to go back to a single color C and numbers, but I don’t think that would be the most popular thing to do (plus, that orange trim on the numbers and letters looks so great).

 

5 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

For me, the gray does not give my eyes a rest.  It sticks out like a sore thumb.  Gray masks on helmets for teams with no gray/silver almost always have that impact on me.  This is especially true for the Colts, who already had a blue mask and made the switch to gray as a lone change.

 

Regarding the actual issue in the thread, I sometimes think that "matching stripes" can be overdone.  For example, the 1980s Patriots (http://www.gridiron-uniforms.com/GUD/images/1990_NewEngland.png).  Every single stripe pattern was meant to be red/white/blue/white/red.  So on the red jersey/pants, it essentially showed up as three stripes.  But on the helmet and white jersey/pants, it showed up as five.  To me the "match" would have been if they just used the three stripes each and every time.  In fact, I don't think I'd recognize all of this as "matching" if I'd never come to this board. When I was a kid, I remember thinking "they use extra stripes on the white jersey vs. the red."

 

Of course, by any definition, the Colts don't match.  I guess that I'm OK with that.  In hindsight, it would perhaps have made more sense to give them a double-stripe on the helmet (like the Jets).  (But then wouldn't some of you be insisting that the blue jersey have white/blue/white/blue/ white on the shoulder to match the helmet?)

 

To each his or her own on the grey masks. That debate will never end. Team color is great (and it looks fine), but it can be a bit overwhelming to have a blue mask, a blue mouth guard, a blue undershirt, blue gloves, and blue shoes. Give me one or two blue accessories, but I like having some neutrals in the mix, too. It looks mature, tough, and professional. I do think team color equipment works from a design perspective, but I prefer when it blends into the uniform (like Michigan, for example) as opposed to standing out.

 

I think we have some commonality on the matching stripes, though. To me, it just doesn’t feel very interesting when they’re all exactly the same, and it looks wacky when they’re sorta the same but not, like the Chiefs’ sleeve and sock stripes. A good example for me is the 49ers. I prefer the old triple stripe design (excluding the overthought angled stripe business) over the new double stripe design. The smaller scale of the triple stripes set them apart from the helmet and pant stripes, creating a bit of interest and hierarchy in the uniform. The double stripes look kind of lifeless by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer the double stripes through all the uniform similar to how WKU once did it, but I am okay with the current look (outside of the facemask). 

50b14bd48a188.image.jpg

 

HHRANNVRLJCWGOX.20120930032650.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 11:43 AM, BrandMooreArt said:

 

the blue pants? yea, but it was only like 1 game. maybe a couple? it definitley didnt define an era of the team

According to the good old Gridiron Uniform Database, you're right: the Colts wore blue pants for three games in September 1995 and not again until last year. This is a weird CCSLC distortion of history: select pictures of the Colts in blue pants on the road have been posted here so many times as a citation for what the team ought to do that I thought they represented a much larger section of the team's history than one month in 1995. Same with the Detroit Lions in blue pants and grey socks, which I've seen a lot but only existed in the 1998 season and not three or four years like I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

I think this works on the Bears’ home set because the scale and pattern of the stripe designs are different enough to be distinct from one another. Chicago’s uniform is chaos if you look at the individual elements, but each unique stripe or trim combination has something else to coordinates with. As a result, it really works when you put it all together. Names/numbers/GSH are white with orange trim, Logo and sleeve/sock stripes are orange with white trim (in the same scale), and the thick pant stripe works well with the blue helmet, jersey and socks. Adding white to the pants stripe, while it would “match” the sleeves, would create a new problem (two of the same pattern in different scales rarely look right together) and personally, I think it would look too matchy.

 

The road uniform, however, is a tougher thing to put together. The sleeve and sock stripes throw a wrench into things because they’re not handled the way you’d expect (based on the design of the home jersey). The main issue for me is the pant stripe. I think it carries a little too much orange to coordinate with the rest of the other elements. It also lacks the contrast of the sleeve and sock stripes (the orange kinda blends into the blue when they touch), and it’s too thick to coordinate with the delicate numbers and helmet logo. Flipping the orange and white solves those problems pretty well, though, as the orange stripe flanked by white on the blue pants works with the sleeve and sock stripes in both color/pattern and scale.

 

The helmet logo is kinda off on its own in the context of the road uniform, but I still think it looks okay. From a design perspective, the only thing you could do to get it all perfectly unified would be to go back to a single color C and numbers, but I don’t think that would be the most popular thing to do (plus, that orange trim on the numbers and letters looks so great).

 

thats one of the best break downs ive ever read on the design of a uniform. i'd love for the Bears to drop some of the outlines to unify all the elements; plus a 1-color orange version of their logo on the helmet would look great. (i even loved the helmet when the logo was white. very bold). being somewhere between where they are now and their throwback would be ideal

 

to tie this into the Colts, its one more reason not to do the double stripe on the helmet— its a variation of size/proportion of a repeating element. moreover, its the Jets design. i stand by that any change to the Colts happens from the waist down, unless there's going to be a modern take on the entire thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only change I would make on the Bears is separating the pants stripes so they match the jersey/sock stripes. I wonder how it would look on the homes, but it should be nice and harmonious in the great all-white set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now