New Vikings Unforms *merged*

[tajmccall]

ive seen this concept bounced around a million times. If any of the so-called insiders who claim they no someone at reebok are right (and most are consistant) the norseman isnt on the jersey, and the shouler piping makes a horn in the back, not the front...even though that doesnt "make" a horn, its just a slap-dash horn thrown onto an ugly yellow side yoke.

if these jerseys end up as ugly as i think, im buying a cheap authentic white one and pouting for at least a week, until i realize i should probably find better things to worry about.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

i actually could believe they may look similar to that concept. I don't think the horns will be on it like that, it'll probably be as tajmccall describes.

[Joshawaggie]

I really doubt they are it to, but I just post what I see.

[quantum]

Apparently, these are it:

"Straight from Winter Park" (The Vikes traingin camp in Mankato)

http://vikingstailgate.blogspot.com/

Gee, what isn't wrong with this picture? The helmet is touching the pants. The template, I believe, is one that was created by someone on this site. The NFL uses a different template. The use of the horns on the jersey is ridiculous. The only thing that is remotely possible is the use of a drop shadow on the horns.

This pic represents pure speculative garbage. Like I mentioned in another post, people are taking the reference to Broncos similarities way too literally.

[Phat Kid]

I don't know who got word that those were it but there is a concept for those posted on purple pride so I do not think that those are official.

[Joshawaggie]

Jesus people, settle down, like I said I'm just reporting what I see. I never said these were official graphics from the NFL. It could be that someone saw the real thing and tried to mimic it in a template.

[Sec19Row53]

Apparently, these are it:

[image snipped]

"Straight from Winter Park" (The Vikes traingin camp in Mankato)

http://vikingstailgate.blogspot.com/

Wilson - Sorry that you feel you're getting slammed here, but when you lead your introduction of this "concept" the way you did, all the rest of your "gee I'm only reporting what I've found" doesn't change what you said at the start.

No offense meant, just trying to point out where people are coming from.

[Ron Mexico]

Winter Park is the Vikings practice facility/front office in EDEN PRAIRIE. Their training camp (completely seperate thing) is in Mankato.

[Joshawaggie]

wow, i'm sorry people are so touchy about this subject. I fixed the original post to make no mistakes about what is being claimed.

[pittfan11]

wow, i'm sorry people are so touchy about this subject. I fixed the original post to make no mistakes about what is being claimed.

Us Vikings fans are sensitive about the looks of our jerseys

[usahockeyrube]

Very Sensitive, we are TERRIFIED!!!

[TruColor]

Official graphics...until we see them in THIS format, they're more than likely not "official":

These are the official Vikings' uniform graphics from last season.

I still have not seen the new uniforms, but have heard that all of the colors are staying the same...

[TruColor]

Here's the same uniform set, only using the official Pantone Textile colors...I find these kind of interesting, since they more accurately reflect what these uniforms would actually look like:

Note how the White areas (the Pantone Textile - 11-0601 TC) is called "Bright White"...it's not a pure White...but in the "real" world, it wouldn't be either.

[winghaz]

Pantone, I looked at some Vikings photos, and the first of those colors more accurately shows what they look like.

The Vikings have never used a true purple. It's always been a blueish purple. Or, if you will, a bright purple.

[TruColor]

Pantone, I looked at some Vikings photos, and the first of those colors more accurately shows what they look like.

The Vikings have never used a true purple. It's always been a blueish purple. Or, if you will, a bright purple.

"Always"? No. The Vikings have used - by my count - THREE different shades of Purple over the years...at least, those years that they had Pantone equivalents for it (1980 or so). When teams started using Pantone colors, they matched up the colors with what they were currently using.

This latest shade of Purple has only been around since 2002. It is COMPLETELY different than the previous shade - it had a lot more Red in it.

I'd show you more examples of what I mean, but I'm on a backup computer right now; I'm way overdue on my disk optimization, and my main computer's gonna be busy most of the day.

With the color descrepencies...as I've stated many times in the past, the colors I use are Pantone, Inc.'s designations for how Pantone colors should be displayed on screen. These colors more accurately represent how a color should look in RGB, which should match how they would look when printing in CMYK. These are NOT Adobe's relatively crappy RGB conversions from CMYK. Adobe's (Illustrator mainly) are NOT accurate at all; yet these are how most web graphics are created. People have gotten used to seeing some of these colors inaccurately depicted because of the proliferation of Illustrator-generated .JPEGs and .GIFs.

I use a completely separate swatch library when I "recolor" graphics. I was able to use the Adobe scripting language and create a separate swatch library for use in RGB. This allows me to replace the colors in a logo with the correct RGB colors. Of course, this is only for displaying on computer monitors; I'm sure they'd look awful when attempting to print in CMYK.

You know how graphic designers are always saying - when showing a graphic on screen - that "the colors will look much different when printed"? Well, that's what I'm fixing here. The colors on screen will more accurately match the colors when printed.

Of course, you need your monitor properly calibrated as well. It's all about the sRGB color space. Which I suspect could be part of the problem people have when I talk about color accuracy.

[FiddySicks]

Pantone, I looked at some Vikings photos, and the first of those colors more accurately shows what they look like.

The Vikings have never used a true purple. It's always been a blueish purple. Or, if you will, a bright purple.

"Always"? No. The Vikings have used - by my count - THREE different shades of Purple over the years...at least, those years that they had Pantone equivalents for it (1980 or so). When teams started using Pantone colors, they matched up the colors with what they were currently using.

This latest shade of Purple has only been around since 2002. It is COMPLETELY different than the previous shade - it had a lot more Red in it.

I'd show you more examples of what I mean, but I'm on a backup computer right now; I'm way overdue on my disk optimization, and my main computer's gonna be busy most of the day.

With the color descrepencies...as I've stated many times in the past, the colors I use are Pantone, Inc.'s designations for how Pantone colors should be displayed on screen. These colors more accurately represent how a color should look in RGB, which should match how they would look when printing in CMYK. These are NOT Adobe's relatively crappy RGB conversions from CMYK. Adobe's (Illustrator mainly) are NOT accurate at all; yet these are how most web graphics are created. People have gotten used to seeing some of these colors inaccurately depicted because of the proliferation of Illustrator-generated .JPEGs and .GIFs.

I use a completely separate swatch library when I "recolor" graphics. I was able to use the Adobe scripting language and create a separate swatch library for use in RGB. This allows me to replace the colors in a logo with the correct RGB colors. Of course, this is only for displaying on computer monitors; I'm sure they'd look awful when attempting to print in CMYK.

You know how graphic designers are always saying - when showing a graphic on screen - that "the colors will look much different when printed"? Well, that's what I'm fixing here. The colors on screen will more accurately match the colors when printed.

Of course, you need your monitor properly calibrated as well. It's all about the sRGB color space. Which I suspect could be part of the problem people have when I talk about color accuracy.

winghaz,

you just got PWN3D

[TruColor]

winghaz,

you just got PWN3D

I wasn't trying to be an a$$...

...just trying to explain myself.

[uniguy22]

winghaz,

you just got PWN3D

I wasn't trying to be an a$$...

...just trying to explain myself.

And you did a very good job.

[winghaz]

"Always"? No. The Vikings have used - by my count - THREE different shades of Purple over the years...at least, those years that they had Pantone equivalents for it (1980 or so). When teams started using Pantone colors, they matched up the colors with what they were currently using.

This latest shade of Purple has only been around since 2002. It is COMPLETELY different than the previous shade - it had a lot more Red in it.

I'd show you more examples of what I mean, but I'm on a backup computer right now; I'm way overdue on my disk optimization, and my main computer's gonna be busy most of the day.

With the color descrepencies...as I've stated many times in the past, the colors I use are Pantone, Inc.'s designations for how Pantone colors should be displayed on screen. These colors more accurately represent how a color should look in RGB, which should match how they would look when printing in CMYK. These are NOT Adobe's relatively crappy RGB conversions from CMYK. Adobe's (Illustrator mainly) are NOT accurate at all; yet these are how most web graphics are created. People have gotten used to seeing some of these colors inaccurately depicted because of the proliferation of Illustrator-generated .JPEGs and .GIFs.

I use a completely separate swatch library when I "recolor" graphics. I was able to use the Adobe scripting language and create a separate swatch library for use in RGB. This allows me to replace the colors in a logo with the correct RGB colors. Of course, this is only for displaying on computer monitors; I'm sure they'd look awful when attempting to print in CMYK.

You know how graphic designers are always saying - when showing a graphic on screen - that "the colors will look much different when printed"? Well, that's what I'm fixing here. The colors on screen will more accurately match the colors when printed.

Of course, you need your monitor properly calibrated as well. It's all about the sRGB color space. Which I suspect could be part of the problem people have when I talk about color accuracy.

Boy, did I ever get shot down.

I was going by memory, of course. I have been a Vikings fan since they first started in 1961, when I was 5 years old, so some of that memory can be warped, of course.

The thing is, though, I've always liked the general style (note, "general") of the Vikings purple. For one thing, we had one of our big rivals in high school have purple and white as their school colors, and the Vikings purple always did seem brighter than theirs.

Let's just put it this way: Vikings purple has always been different than, say, Kansas State purple or Northwestern purple. It least it seems that way to me.

Of course, you're the expert on this. And I politely yield to the expert.

[Phat Kid]

Found this over on purplepride.org. Here is the post then the pic:

Posted by FedjeViking:

Well that other fellow (on that other list) came up with what is suppose to be the new jersey's. He says he knows someone who works at Reeboks. Take a look....

Now here is the pic:

Meh I don't know. Have to see when they come out I guess before I make up my mind.