Tampa Bay Buccaneers Unveil New Uniforms

[andrewharrington]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

The “copy of a copy” and logo variations has always fascinated me. With the mass digitization of these graphics in the early-mid 1990s, I have my doubts about the quality of the sources.

 

Think about it like film restoration for a blu-ray. Generally, you want to go back to the original camera negatives for the best quality image, without any of the imperfections and distortions from later generation prints. With later generations of prints (e.g., an interpositive, an IB technicolor release print, or an LPP print seen in theaters) you have various flaws introduced, like less highlight and shadow detail, along with scratches and jitter. I’m assuming that a lot of these digitizations came from “later generation” sources.
 

This would explain the reason why this stuff exists:

 

...alongside attempts at “standardization” that fell flat:

 

These are just a few examples and I’m sure you can think of more, @andrewharrington. I’m sure at least one of those Bruce logos is a “copy of a copy” that received digitization. 

Absolutely. The art is going to get less and less accurate with every incarnation if the artist doesn’t bother to verify it by doing the research and going to the original source.

 

To be completely honest, I don’t think I’ve ever pulled the “official” vintage logo for anything I’ve done because I either don’t trust the accuracy of it or I inevitably find through my own research that it is, in fact, not accurate. Even most “authentic reproductions” simply aren’t. I find Ebbets Field very trustworthy, but that’s about it. I always try to start with a genuine game-worn piece or at least an authentic action photo.

[Old School Fool]

To clear up the Bucco Bruce logo, it looks like the team probably changed it in 1992 based on the Gridiron Uniform Database. They debuted orange pants in 1992 so that seems like a good point to change it up. What the team wore as a throwback in 2009 wasn't an error. The actual logo was detailed but I guess they never bothered to put that version on the helmet until 1992.

 

Below is a pic of Steve Young wearing the less detailed one in 1985.

 

 

This is a helmet from the 70's:

 

 

 

Now this is to be from 1991-1992.

 

[IceCap]

4 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

I don't know about that, I followed uniwatch for years and he consistently came across as smug and pompous. Everyone on here trashes and praises uniforms but he made it seem like his opinions were facts.

Paul Lukas is just like any of us, but he was the first person who realized there was an audience of people who wanted to hear about uni news. 

As such his platform, as @the admiral said, is larger. Part of that is because he, as the first person to do this, is considered an authority. 

 

People whose opinions naturally clash with Lukas' will deride him as pompous and arrogant when, in reality, he's just the first guy to write in length about this stuff and thus get the most attention. 

What these people fail to realize is that it was all chance. Lukas happened to be the guy who did what he did. If someone else with opposite taste happened to be that guy? Then other people would be calling him pompous or arrogant. 

 

It's sort of like Dave Meltzer in pro wrestling. Or our very own @infrared41 with his weekly best looking NFL games lists (on a much smaller scale in 'red's case of course  ) 

 

Just guys sharing their opinions with something of a following, who get the irrational hatred of people who can't understand that their writing clearly represents their views and no one else's. 

 

Anyway, see my point? One guy decided to harp on Paul Lukas for reasons unrelated to the Bucs' uniform mockups and we're talking about this nonsense. 

 

I'm half tempted to go with @BringBackTheVet's idea. I might start issuing warning points for thread derailment the next time someone tries to turn a uniform discussion into their own personal Paul Lukas hate session. 

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, Old School Fool said:

To clear up the Bucco Bruce logo, it looks like the team probably changed it in 1992 based on the Gridiron Uniform Database. They debuted orange pants in 1992 so that seems like a good point to change it up. What the team wore as a throwback in 2009 wasn't an error. The actual logo was detailed but I guess they never bothered to put that version on the helmet until 1992.

 

Below is a pic of Steve Young wearing the less detailed one in 1985.

 

 

This is a helmet from the 70's:

 

 

 

Now this is to be from 1991-1992.

 

 

The Bucs did make a few really subtle tweaks to their uniforms and logo package sometime in the early 90s or the late 80s (I can’t remember off the top of my head, but 1992 sounds about right). They also simultaneously made a few adjustments to their color scheme.  They went from a really bright, almost pastel looking shade of orange, to a deeper, more common shade of orange. I understand why they did this, because it was just so much easier to produce merchandise that was consistent with a more common shade of orange. The problem with that though, was it took a set that was already starting to feel really dated and mired in mediocrity and just made the whole thing even more drab and dull. It would be like if one off season the Oilers took their powder/luv ya blue and swapped it out to a really washed out shade of royal blue. It would’ve still fit the theme, but even casual fans would’ve noticed that there was something just slightly off about the look. That slight color adjustment they made left them in a position where, by the time 1997 rolled around, people were absolutely DYING for them to leave that look in the past. The tail end of the “creamsicle”!era had the Bucs not only looking extremely dated, but IMO, put them in one of the absolute worst looks in the history of the NFL. People may have loved that look in the 70s, but absolutely NOBODY liked that look after the 1992 changes, and it’s totally merited. 

 

 

Then the 2009 throwbacks came out, and they did all sorts of weird :censored:. They brought back the original pastel orange (which was the right move), and, as you said, paired it with the updated Bucco Bruce logo (also the right move). So by the time those hit the field you had a really bright, very crisp looking throwback that fit them about as well as you could ever hope for from a throwback. 

 

Thats always been one one of my issues with the 2009 throwbacks. They paired the best elements of that set together and people really did love it. But the reality is that the 2009 throwbacks weren’t really specific to any past era. They were more of a subtle mashup of their previous looks.

 

[hormone]

Why is Bruce backwards on that image from an auction site?

[CrookedThumb]

Thanks for the clarification, everyone!  Like I said, before the 2009 throwbacks were released, I was only aware of the “cleaner” version.  And since the Glazers said they went to extreme lengths to make sure they got the 1976 jersey right (since it was never worn during a game from which there are color photos), I had simply thought the rougher logo only existed in 1976.

 

Also, I’m happy to get some really cool insight as to how logos were made and produced, so thanks for the history lesson!

[BadSeed84]

7 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

 

 

 

I also think it's silly that $30M/year guys claim they have a "blue collar attitude" or that teams say they represent "Blue collar cities" (when 90% of the people in their arenas are white-collar guys).  The phrase "blue collar" is absolutely nothing more than pandering.  I find it amusing when I hear guys in an office say "yeah, this is a blue-collar town", like they even know what that means  Every town has a blue collar class.  Literally every one.  Just like every town has a white collar.  This isn't the '50s where 90% of people in Pittsburgh were working at the mills.  It's 2020, where 90% of people in Pittsburgh are working at PNC or for CMU or PITT.

 

 

 

 

I don't disagree with his opinion on the matter really, jI mean take any logo or uniform unveiling, there is plenty of stupid ass terms used to describe them, is anything worse than the lines at every aspect of a logo trying to tell a story about it? Hell you KNOW the Bucs are going to do it when they unveil theirs (The angles the new numbers are cut are like he planks on a pirate ship, etc).

It's just that last week he seemed to just go on and on about it,and I just thought it was odd to do over that one term. but yea it's his blog and I won't continue to derail a thread stating my opinion on him. This is the last I will talk about him,(PS the Dave Meltzer comparison is really good as well) Back to talking about the Bucs.

If these look like the mockups, it will be very disappointing. I'm hoping that perhaps the pics that were seen were crappy blurry low res pics.

The ONLY good thing though is it seems they will have a full pant stripe, but again only a mockup.

[Pa02]

Thank God that they decided to leave Bruce in the past. Not everything that’s vintage is good. Colors included.

[bootscallahan]

14 hours ago, EddieJ1984 said:

 

Such a creepy lookin dude, his latest thing has been whining about teams/players saying they have a blue collar attitude. How its offensive to blue collar workers and it offends him, Umm you never worked 1 day in your life at a blue collar job either lmao.

 

I agree with Paul. They're fetishizing blue collar work without themselves doing it. I've worked both blue collar (restaurant, Army, UPS) and white collar (attorney) and there are people with incredibly high and low work ethics in both. Are the vast majority of professional and collegiate athletes hard workers? Of course, but that doesn't mean they should be compared to coal miners and factory workers working third shift. Just my two cents. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

I wonder if they could do a Bucco Bruce as a person of color.

 

The term Buccaneer derives from the word "Buccan" which was type of smoked meat sold in the Caribbean, especially by the outlaws on the island of Tortuga off the coast of what is now Haiti. 

 

While the pirates had many French and British mariners, there was also a high population of Africans who had escaped from slavery. 

 

Might be an interesting idea to try out. 

[The_Admiral]

He already is a person of color (creamsicle orange)

[bucky_bleichert]

regardless of his opinion on uniforms, can we all agree it is egregiously cringe-worthy when he refers to his significant other as "The Tugboat Captain?" ugh, gives me douche chills just typing that out.

 

now that i've gotten that out of my system, these Bucs uniforms (if real) are without a doubt better than their previous look.  the lack of orange is a disappointment, but considering we're losing those wrteched numbers and the dreary shoulder yoke, it's a trade i'm willing to make. 

 

i agree with the previous poster who said this update, along with the jags' and the browns upcoming redesign, is a strong repudiation of nike's aesthetic.  hopefully moving forward, we won't see those types of misfires again.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

1 minute ago, the admiral said:

He already is a person of color (creamsicle orange)

 

*Rimshot*

[Sec19Row53]

3 hours ago, CrookedThumb said:

Thanks for the clarification, everyone!  Like I said, before the 2009 throwbacks were released, I was only aware of the “cleaner” version.  And since the Glazers said they went to extreme lengths to make sure they got the 1976 jersey right (since it was never worn during a game from which there are color photos), I had simply thought the rougher logo only existed in 1976.

 

Also, I’m happy to get some really cool insight as to how logos were made and produced, so thanks for the history lesson!

It was worn in 1976, not 1946. There's color FILM of the darn things being worn.

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/tampa-bay-buccaneers/0ap2000000214786/Greatest-Uni-Tampa-Bay-Buccaneers-1976

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6b0VEKmvB4

[Survival79]

3 minutes ago, bucky_bleichert said:

the lack of orange is a disappointment

 

Most definitely. I hope they don't get rid of orange completely, but if they did would they take the opportunity to further simplify the logos and palette (getting rid of silver as well)? It would allow them to incorporate some pewter into the logo.

 

I don't think any of this is a good idea, just something to consider.

 

 

[CrookedThumb]

48 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

It was worn in 1976, not 1946. There's color FILM of the darn things being worn.

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/tampa-bay-buccaneers/0ap2000000214786/Greatest-Uni-Tampa-Bay-Buccaneers-1976

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6b0VEKmvB4

Not of the 1976 orange jersey.  It was only worn during the preseason that year, and NFL Films didn’t cover those games.  1976 was the only year that particular shade of orange was used.  During the press conference of the 2009 throwback unveiling, the Glazers said that in order to get the exact shade of orange used in 1976, they had to locate a production of that jersey, which they ultimately found at a memorabilia shop.

[PaleVermilion81]

26 minutes ago, Survival79 said:

 

Most definitely. I hope they don't get rid of orange completely, but if they did would they take the opportunity to further simplify the logos and palette (getting rid of silver as well)? It would allow them to incorporate some pewter into the logo.

 

I don't think any of this is a good idea, just something to consider.

 

 

 

I like this a lot actually. I mean, I like the orange in there better, but the removal of silver from the outline on both logos does wonders. 

[andrewharrington]

1 hour ago, bootscallahan said:

 

I agree with Paul. They're fetishizing blue collar work without themselves doing it. I've worked both blue collar (restaurant, Army, UPS) and white collar (attorney) and there are people with incredibly high and low work ethics in both. Are the vast majority of professional and collegiate athletes hard workers? Of course, but that doesn't mean they should be compared to coal miners and factory workers working third shift. Just my two cents. 

Yes. What’s silly is you can just use descriptive words associated with “blue-collar” culture without trying to capitalize the term and take commercial advantage of it. Call your team gritty or scrappy. Say they hustle, put in consistent effort for four quarters, or they do the dirty work to get better.

 

1 hour ago, bucky_bleichert said:

regardless of his opinion on uniforms, can we all agree it is egregiously cringe-worthy when he refers to his significant other as "The Tugboat Captain?" ugh, gives me douche chills just typing that out.

 

now that i've gotten that out of my system, these Bucs uniforms (if real) are without a doubt better than their previous look.  the lack of orange is a disappointment, but considering we're losing those wrteched numbers and the dreary shoulder yoke, it's a trade i'm willing to make. 

 

i agree with the previous poster who said this update, along with the jags' and the browns upcoming redesign, is a strong repudiation of nike's aesthetic.  hopefully moving forward, we won't see those types of misfires again.

I don’t mind it at all. Isn’t she... a tugboat captain? In my opinion, it’s a fun way to describe someone whose name you don’t want to reveal. The other option is to type my girlfriend, my partner, or my significant other every time, but that could refer to anyone he may be dating at a given time. “Tugboat Captain” is specific and personal; it gives her a name and identity without having to reveal her actual name.

[Sec19Row53]

2 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I don’t mind it at all. Isn’t she... a tugboat captain? In my opinion, it’s a fun way to describe someone whose name you don’t want to reveal. The other option is to type my girlfriend, my partner, or my significant every time, but that could refer to anyone he may be dating at a given time. “Tugboat Captain” is specific and personal; it gives her a name and identity without having to reveal her actual name.

And he can't call her Mrs. Paul - that name is taken 

[oldschoolvikings]

47 minutes ago, Survival79 said:

 

Most definitely. I hope they don't get rid of orange completely, but if they did would they take the opportunity to further simplify the logos and palette (getting rid of silver as well)? It would allow them to incorporate some pewter into the logo.

 

I don't think any of this is a good idea, just something to consider.

 

 

 

My guess is they wont remove the orange from the logos. Having an official team color that only appears in logos is fairly common, and would continue the comparisons to Jacksonville (gold) and Tennessee (red), especially if the swooshes go orange, as suggested.