Cincinnati Bengals New Uniforms

[tBBP]

30 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

Another image to show the differences:

 

The bottom stripes are different angles, widths, flows.   Just look at the bottom stripes on each side.  The old one comes to a sharp point going about 180 from the stripe two above it.  The new pattern has a much flatter last strip that actually curves back upwards. Its totally different.  The middle stripes have different flows, widths...      

 

 

 

 

And THIS, folks, is the essence of what the CCSLC is all about. 

[PaleVermilion81]

5 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

since when is 60% the same at the "Exact"

 

Since sarcasm was created

[DPHF]

1 hour ago, CreamSoda said:

Another image to show the differences:

 

The bottom stripes are different angles, widths, flows.   Just look at the bottom stripes on each side.  The old one comes to a sharp point going about 180 from the stripe two above it.  The new pattern has a much flatter last strip that actually curves back upwards. Its totally different.  The middle stripes have different flows, widths...      

 

 

 

 

For me, this visual further confirms that it's the same stripe pattern, placed into a different panel shape. 

 

But also,  since when is two very minor differences (that I'm pretty sure are just due to the stretching of the material and the shape of the panel) the same as "totally different"? 

[-Akronite-]

7 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

oh please, you were trying to make it sound like it was a copy/paste job that the designers didnt spend any time on.....  then when proven thats not true you just ignore it...

 

"Something I noticed amidst all this pants talk but didn't see mentioned is that the new pants have the exact same stripe pattern as the old ones. The panel was just straightened and widened (along with being recolored, obviously). "

 

Like your observation was wrong.....  not sure what else to tell you.  Oh yeah, navy blue is exactly the same thing as teal.  Good observation!   Close enough!  

 

Now that we've established that "exact" was wrong, will you admit that the new design is clearly a modified version of the previous stripes? 

 

Also, I think it's jumping to conclusions to think he was accusing the designers of laziness, he's just noting the similarity.

[CreamSoda]

33 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

 

Now that we've established that "exact" was wrong, will you admit that the new design is clearly a modified version of the previous stripes? 

 

Also, I think it's jumping to conclusions to think he was accusing the designers of laziness, he's just noting the similarity.

it definitely is a modification of the prior striping pattern, no argument there.  
 

but the whole premise of this board it to be pedantic about sports aesthetics.   The Bengals clearly altered it and it’s lazy to say it’s the same pattern.    
 

It’s like saying the browns used the same orange or the Lions have the same logo as before.   To most people they wouldn’t notice a difference, but it’s there. 

[CreamSoda]

3 hours ago, DPHF said:

 

For me, this visual further confirms that it's the same stripe pattern, placed into a different panel shape. 

 

But also,  since when is two very minor differences (that I'm pretty sure are just due to the stretching of the material and the shape of the panel) the same as "totally different"? 

There’s not much else to do with a Tiger stripe pattern.  But if tweaks are identical to you, I’m not sure what else to say.  

[joekono]

2 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

it definitely is a modification of the prior striping pattern, no argument there.  
 

but the whole premise of this board it to be pedantic about sports aesthetics.   The Bengals clearly altered it and it’s lazy to say it’s the same pattern.    
 

It’s like saying the browns used the same orange or the Lions have the same logo as before.   To most people they wouldn’t notice a difference, but it’s there. 

Can't hear that word without thinking of.....

[DenverKing]

9 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

it definitely is a modification of the prior striping pattern, no argument there.  
 

but the whole premise of this board it to be pedantic about sports aesthetics.   The Bengals clearly altered it and it’s lazy to say it’s the same pattern.    
 

It’s like saying the browns used the same orange or the Lions have the same logo as before.   To most people they wouldn’t notice a difference, but it’s there. 

Being pedantic is fine. I can be pedantic too. 
 

For example, I would not say it is “clear” that the Bengals altered the stripe if I and other members of this board could not/still cannot notice a difference at first glance. That’s not “easy to perceive.” But maybe you and I have different definitions of “clear,” and that’s okay, so I’m not gonna bring it up 10 more times.

 

And while I’m here, you’re right - this is just like the Lions! You see, their current logo is the exact same as their previous logo, just with a different stroke color.

[andrewharrington]

10 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

There’s not much else to do with a Tiger stripe pattern.  But if tweaks are identical to you, I’m not sure what else to say.  

Well, let’s go apples to apples then, since there is one pair of pants that was carried over.

 

 

That’s essentially the same sublimation art with a new garment pattern. The straightened front seam is just cropping off the point.

[-Akronite-]

10 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

There’s not much else to do with a Tiger stripe pattern.  But if tweaks are identical to you, I’m not sure what else to say.  

 

How do we conclude this when actual tigers each have unique striping? 

 

Similar concept but a different pattern.

 

Same team but a different pattern.

 

This Bengals rebrand could've been totally different, but it wasn't.

 

I should probably rest my case, fun bickering everyone!

[floydnimrod]

The biggest part of this to me is that the Bengals actually updated their practice uniforms this time. They'd been hanging onto the 97-03 set with block numbers since the 04 rebrand

[CreamSoda]

1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

Well, let’s go apples to apples then, since there is one pair of pants that was carried over.

 

 

That’s essentially the same sublimation art with a new garment pattern. The straightened front seam is just cropping off the point.

 

 

You cut off the main points I am saying are different.  Not sure what this is supposed to prove?

[Sport]

GOOD GRIEF!

 

Here's the actual point that's been lost over arguments about the definition of "exactly": The point is they didn't completely redesign the pants stripes from the last uniform the way they did when they changed between 2003 and 2004. What you see on the old set is mostly what you see on the new set. That's all. F***!

 

 

[CreamSoda]

1 hour ago, Sport said:

GOOD GRIEF!

 

Here's the actual point that's been lost over arguments about the definition of "exactly": The point is they didn't completely redesign the pants stripes from the last uniform the way they did when they changed between 2003 and 2004. What you see on the old set is mostly what you see on the new set. That's all. F***!

 

 

 

So glad thats decided.  We can go back to talking about how they look like clown fish instead! 

[andrewharrington]

10 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

 

You cut off the main points I am saying are different.  Not sure what this is supposed to prove?

It’s supposed to prove that the stripes are the same art cropped into a differently-shaped panel (and with an added outline), which is what everyone you’ve been arguing with has been trying to explain.

[monkeypower]

12 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

How do we conclude this when actual tigers each have unique striping? 

 

Similar concept but a different pattern.

 

Same team but a different pattern.

 

This Bengals rebrand could've been totally different, but it wasn't.

 

I should probably rest my case, fun bickering everyone!

 

Similar concept but different team and different sport.

[Crabcake]

9 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

So glad thats decided.  We can go back to talking about how they look like clown fish instead! 

Whoever pointed out the white-stripes-on-orange-background pattern looked like a clownfish ruined those pants for me. I can’t see anything else now. 
 

Such a boneheaded decision. 

[CreamSoda]

1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

It’s supposed to prove that the stripes are the same art cropped into a differently-shaped panel (and with an added outline), which is what everyone you’ve been arguing with has been trying to explain.

I agree it’s very similar.  But there are parts that aren’t the same, no matter the width or shape for the panel.     Not sure why they tweaked some stripes but they did.  Maybe to fit better into the new panel?

 

Anyways I’m done pointing out the differences,  people either see them as the same or not. 

[dont care]

1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

It’s supposed to prove that the stripes are the same art cropped into a differently-shaped panel (and with an added outline), which is what everyone you’ve been arguing with has been trying to explain.

But it’s not the same, there are distinct differences. They are similar, sure, especially in the top half, but the stripes are completely different coming from different sides at the bottom.

[andrewharrington]

13 hours ago, dont care said:

But it’s not the same, there are distinct differences. They are similar, sure, especially in the top half, but the stripes are completely different coming from different sides at the bottom.

No, they’re not. Look at the two pictures of the white pant with black stripes. Every single black stripe on the old pant can be matched 1:1 with its corresponding partner on the new pant, except the forward point where the two bottom stripes “connect.” It’s identical, just cropped into a straight panel at the bottom instead of one that curves toward the knee.