Morgan33 Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 The Knight on the logo is gold, that's more than sufficient. Their inaugural set is perfect as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypower Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 3 hours ago, monkeypower said: Well they are the Golden Knights and not the Grey Knights. Cripes, I wasn't being entirely serious with this. But where is the line when it becomes weird that a team isn't wearing the colour that is in their name as a primary colour? Is Vegas fine because like Morgo said, the knight in the logo is gold? Would the Blue Jackets get a pass if they didn't wear a primary blue jersey, or is the "blue" too tied into the team identity with the Civil War? The Blackhawks used to wear black and their name was the two word "Black Hawks", but them wearing red is fine because they weren't named after the colour nor the bird? The Blues and the Browns don't really need to wear the colour in their name because they aren't named after the colours, but the Reds not in red would be dumb. Or like, as noted on the boards many times, the White Sox not wearing white socks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 The White Sox do need to wear white socks! I will not yield on that. They shouldn't wear the opposite of white. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mingjai Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 25 minutes ago, the admiral said: The White Sox do need to wear white socks! I will not yield on that. They shouldn't wear the opposite of white. It would be like the red hat (TV timeout official) not wearing a red hat. Visit my store on REDBUBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 "You're squeezin' me, Blue!", he says to the man in charcoal and black. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnPheitseog Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 3 hours ago, monkeypower said: Cripes, I wasn't being entirely serious with this. But where is the line when it becomes weird that a team isn't wearing the colour that is in their name as a primary colour? Is Vegas fine because like Morgo said, the knight in the logo is gold? Would the Blue Jackets get a pass if they didn't wear a primary blue jersey, or is the "blue" too tied into the team identity with the Civil War? The Blackhawks used to wear black and their name was the two word "Black Hawks", but them wearing red is fine because they weren't named after the colour nor the bird? The Blues and the Browns don't really need to wear the colour in their name because they aren't named after the colours, but the Reds not in red would be dumb. Or like, as noted on the boards many times, the White Sox not wearing white socks. With Vegas, the golden part isn't what was wanted. Foley wanted the Knights sans adjective but couldnt get it so he added Golden. Not as important as the other imo Formerly known as DiePerske Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Seems the Golden Knights are following the same trajectory as the Florida Panthers. 1) Knock it out the park with their inaugural set 2) Introduce a lazy recolour for an alternate that resembles a fashion jersey 3) Phase original dark-jersey out for said recolour. Hopefully they don't end up with an MLS shield and chest stripe that doesn't go all the way around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacat_12 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 9 hours ago, Survival79 said: Foley also expressed his elation with the Knights’ new gold jersey that was unveiled Oct. 2. He said the gray home jerseys are “a little reserved” and the gold will drown out the team colors worn by opposing fans. “I wouldn’t mind the gray jersey eventually matriculating to be the third jersey and the gold jersey being our home jersey,” he said. “It’s really a good-looking jersey.” Considering how polarizing the jersey has been I don't see this happening. It functions perfectly as an alternate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayne Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 12 hours ago, monkeypower said: Well they are the Golden Knights and not the Grey Knights. I can't stand this kind of criticism. It's like there is no room for nuance, no desire for subtlety. "They're called the Golden Knights so they should obviously wear gold!" No they shouldn't. Since when has a colour designation always been an accurate descriptor of the actual thing it's naming? There's examples of this all over the place and to me that's what makes a name like that more interesting. I mean they already do wear some gold so it's not really even effective in that sense, but at least it's showing some restraint. But hey, it's Vegas so I guess all bets are off. And people who have unorthodox opinions and ideas are going to be vindicated by an anomaly in the league. So whatever. I'm Danny fkn Heatley, I play for myself. That's what fkn all stars do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobbi Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 6 hours ago, Morgan33 said: Seems the Golden Knights are following the same trajectory as the Florida Panthers. 1) Knock it out the park with their inaugural set 2) Introduce a lazy recolour for an alternate that resembles a fashion jersey 3) Phase original dark-jersey out for said recolour. Hopefully they don't end up with an MLS shield and chest stripe that doesn't go all the way around... I’ve always liked the navy Panthers jersey (minus the broken stick added to the logo) better than the red. I didn’t realize that belonged in the unpopular opinions thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannykraft Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 16 hours ago, monkeypower said: Cripes, I wasn't being entirely serious with this. But where is the line when it becomes weird that a team isn't wearing the colour that is in their name as a primary colour? Is Vegas fine because like Morgo said, the knight in the logo is gold? Would the Blue Jackets get a pass if they didn't wear a primary blue jersey, or is the "blue" too tied into the team identity with the Civil War? The Blackhawks used to wear black and their name was the two word "Black Hawks", but them wearing red is fine because they weren't named after the colour nor the bird? The Blues and the Browns don't really need to wear the colour in their name because they aren't named after the colours, but the Reds not in red would be dumb. Or like, as noted on the boards many times, the White Sox not wearing white socks. I think it really depends on the situation and I really can't decide what I should feel about Vegas, in theory I want them to wear gold because I feel like that is how it should be but on the other. hand I think the grey is a way better look. For every other team you named I think 100% they should wear their color. they after named after except the Blackhawks. If they were named after hawks that are black I would want them too but they fall into a whole different category. This rule could also apply to the blues but I'm happy they use blue so we don't need to think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridleylash Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just because a team has a color in their name doesn't always mean that color must be heavily emphasized. Paul Brown naming aside, the Browns wearing monobrown look worse than the Browns wearing brown jerseys with orange pants. Similarly, Vegas wearing grey at home with black pants and gloves and a grey helmet looks better then them wearing sparkly gold jerseys with a grey helmet, white gloves and half-gold half-grey socks. There's a point where general aesthetics should trump "this is the name, therefore this should be the look"-type talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypower Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 8 hours ago, Bayne said: I can't stand this kind of criticism. It's like there is no room for nuance, no desire for subtlety. "They're called the Golden Knights so they should obviously wear gold!" No they shouldn't. Since when has a colour designation always been an accurate descriptor of the actual thing it's naming? There's examples of this all over the place and to me that's what makes a name like that more interesting. I mean they already do wear some gold so it's not really even effective in that sense, but at least it's showing some restraint. But hey, it's Vegas so I guess all bets are off. And people who have unorthodox opinions and ideas are going to be vindicated by an anomaly in the league. So whatever. 18 hours ago, monkeypower said: Cripes, I wasn't being entirely serious with this. But where is the line when it becomes weird that a team isn't wearing the colour that is in their name as a primary colour? Is Vegas fine because like Morgo said, the knight in the logo is gold? Would the Blue Jackets get a pass if they didn't wear a primary blue jersey, or is the "blue" too tied into the team identity with the Civil War? The Blackhawks used to wear black and their name was the two word "Black Hawks", but them wearing red is fine because they weren't named after the colour nor the bird? The Blues and the Browns don't really need to wear the colour in their name because they aren't named after the colours, but the Reds not in red would be dumb. Or like, as noted on the boards many times, the White Sox not wearing white socks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1908_Cubs Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 I'm going to wait to see these under arena lights and on the ice before I really hate them too much. I know I should probably hate these things, but if they come off with a real gold sparkle...I might be able to get behind these as a uniform you see on "Special Sunday Games" or whatever. Yeah they're going to be gaudy, but if they look shiny like the gold on their dark-gray's, and not mustard like, well, almost any other gold uniform we've seen, I think they could fill a unique void, for a unique market that is kind of known for the "show". They'll be gaudy, but I think they're gaudy on purpose, and that gives them enough purpose. If they're mustard, I'll hate 'em, and they'll ruin the whole thing, but if they can maintain the shine...they might be a unique curiosity I could get behind as a 3rd (though please, never elevate these things past that. Keep them as a "special" night thing and never as the primary. The primary uniform is good as is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColeJ Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 really the only problem with the vegas jerseys is the color balance and contrast. those big white stripes just absolutely ruin it. gold and black would have been fine. they didn't have to follow the exact template to a T for an alternate. gold body, black to anchor it down, and grey to emphasize the distinction between grey and black that makes their identity is really all they needed. a little red if they desire, too... but that gold body, grey (that looks like ugly faded black when it isn't paired WITH black, imo) and clunky white stripes ruin it. honestly, more black would go a long way to making it look solid. it just looks weak to me, and like a bad concept or fashion jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebod39 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said: if they come off with a real gold sparkle... Yes, they sparkle. Yes, they are the same gold color as the stripes on the H&A. Yes, they're unapologetically Las Vegas. Here's a high res pic that illustrates the sparkle and color: https://www.reddit.com/r/hockeyjerseys/comments/ja6d8c/in_true_reddit_fashion_10_days_after_calling_this/ copy/paste: https://i.redd.it/83u31fysfss51.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger77 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Swapping the grey with black would make it so much better. PotD May 11th, 2011looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 15 hours ago, _J_ said: With Vegas, the golden part isn't what was wanted. Foley wanted the Knights sans adjective but couldnt get it so he added Golden. Not as important as the other imo No, he wanted to name them the "BLACK Knights" in honor of Army as he graduated from West Point. He literally named his businesses "Black Knight___" (Financial, Sports & Entertainment, etc.) Due to trademarks, he couldn't use Black Knights and so he settled on "Golden Knights", though not without further copyright issues. He never intended on only naming them "Knights". That would've probably been the least contested route. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 I think there was a point where he looked into just plain Knights and the London Knights said something. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly97flyer Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Are there any other expected 3rd jerseys for this upcoming season? I also remember reading something about a 4th jersey/throwback program for this season too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.