No blue for the Reds in 2007

[Avenger]

Going the other way, keep darkening red and you head toward mauve/magenta and the purple family, which would make the uniform look more like a bouquet of flowers - also a look many sports teams would opt against.

If they kept it tonal, I think it could work fine. Muave, magenta, purple aren't the dark tones of red? they're completely different hues.

[VitaminD]

2-tone green?  Maybe.

See 1980s (?) Milwaukee Bucks.

Exactly - those Bucks unis were ultrasweet. It can be done with certain colors, just not red...

[Sport]

(and I don't think anyone wants the pullovers back do they?)

I actually do. For every other team pullovers suck, but the reds always looked pretty good in my eyes, especially the ones they wore for their last world series.

[griffelh]

(and I don't think anyone wants the pullovers back do they?)

I actually do. For every other team pullovers suck, but the reds always looked pretty good in my eyes, especially the ones they wore for their last world series.

Pretty much the same ones they wore for the 3 World Series before that.

[Sport]

(and I don't think anyone wants the pullovers back do they?)

I actually do. For every other team pullovers suck, but the reds always looked pretty good in my eyes, especially the ones they wore for their last world series.

Pretty much the same ones they wore for the 3 World Series before that.

Not true.

The pants stripes make all the difference.

[John in KY]

(and I don't think anyone wants the pullovers back do they?)

I actually do. For every other team pullovers suck, but the reds always looked pretty good in my eyes, especially the ones they wore for their last world series.

I also liked that last version of the pullovers better than the originals; I always thought the red/white sleeve stripes looked unbalanced compared to the later red/white/red stripes. I guess my comment was based more on the current baggy look, which to me looks worse on the pullover throwbacks than on the current button-down style uniforms. If they also went back to the late 80s/early 90s fit, it wouldn't bug me that much.

Also, this uniform could be converted to a nice button-up pretty easily (much like the Angels and Royals did for the mid/late 1980s).

[CubsFanBudMan]

Can't see royal blue as a good choice to add. Not that navy's any better, but at least it could be limited to a trim role. Royal could either get lost, like Tampa Bay, could be used so limited it echoes the Phillies, or would be much too prominent for the "Reds."

[Avenger]

Exactly - those Bucks unis were ultrasweet. It can be done with certain colors, just not red...

You keep saying that, but I'm not buying it...

I'm not neccesarily suggesting this for the Reds, but two tones of the same hue will always work together.

[BBM]

Here's a quick mock-up I did with maroon and red in the color scheme (ignore the black belts):

I think it could look sharp. They could even keep the same alt.

[VitaminD]

Not a fan of BBM's 2-tone red idea. And it's not to be snide and stick to my original contention that 2-tone red wouldn't look good.

In fact, it could work better than I had always believed. But not this one. Why? There's no "dominant red" in the scheme. As a result, some things are the lighter shade, and some are the darker shade. Unlike navy/sky blue, which are clearly removed from one another on the spectrum, these reds are a little too close to be used well.

Example: On the home jersey, the numbers are dark red. But the undershirt sleeves are bright red. The result is that it looks like the undershirt isn't meant to go with the jersey. Worse still, the front numbers are dark red, but the left chest logo - the "wishbone C" - is bright red. Again - which color is the primary red that the team derived its nickname from?

The road uniform has similar problems. The "CINCINNATI" and player numbers are bright red. The undersleeves are dark red. The sleeves don't look like they should be worn under that jersey.

Then there are the hats. Bright red at home; dark red on the road. Is anyone going to form over $25-30 for each hat? And you'll get to the point where half the fan base is wearing the bright red hat, and the other half is wearing dark red. Teams that wear two markedly different hats (i.e. Nationals) have it hard enough when the fan base splits along red/navy lines. But Reds fans would look bizarre, given the smaller but still discernable difference between the two shades of red.

I'm willing to conceded that it could work. But if the first example is any evidence, my original contention still stands.

[BBM]

Not a fan of BBM's 2-tone red idea.  And it's not to be snide and stick to my original contention that 2-tone red wouldn't look good.

In fact, it could work better than I had always believed.  But not this one.  Why?  There's no "dominant red" in the scheme.  As a result, some things are the lighter shade, and some are the darker shade.  Unlike navy/sky blue, which are clearly removed from one another on the spectrum, these reds are a little too close to be used well.

Example: On the home jersey, the numbers are dark red.  But the undershirt sleeves are bright red.  The result is that it looks like the undershirt isn't meant to go with the jersey.  Worse still, the front numbers are dark red, but the left chest logo - the "wishbone C" - is bright red.  Again - which color is the primary red that the team derived its nickname from?

The road uniform has similar problems.  The "CINCINNATI" and player numbers are bright red.  The undersleeves are dark red.  The sleeves don't look like they should be worn under that jersey.

Then there are the hats.  Bright red at home; dark red on the road.  Is anyone going to form over $25-30 for each hat?  And you'll get to the point where half the fan base is wearing the bright red hat, and the other half is wearing dark red.  Teams that wear two markedly different hats (i.e. Nationals) have it hard enough when the fan base splits along red/navy lines.  But Reds fans would look bizarre, given the smaller but still discernable difference between the two shades of red.

I'm willing to conceded that it could work.  But if the first example is any evidence, my original contention still stands.

You do realize I basically just swapped out black for maroon, right? So any gripe you have about two different hats, or undershirts not matching pretty much can be argued with the Reds' current set.

I made the numbers on the home unis maroon simply to try and incoporate the color more into the overall aesthetic (if you'll notice, the stipes are still red, matching the undershirt). I fooled around with a maroon undershirt on the homes, but thought it was too much.

I disagree with you on the roads, though. I think that looks very nice together. The homes could use some tweaking (anyone feel free), but I like that road set. It looks sharp IMO.

[BBM]

For comparison, the Reds' current set:

Like I said the only thing I changed from red to maroon were the home numbers. Everything else was changed from black.

[leaderslead]

Bye Bye Vests? They Gone.

Think older school Reds and you'll have it.

T.

[edensker]

I am conducting a coup and taking over the Reds franchise. My first edict will be the uniforms.

1. Home uniforms stays essentially the same, except that all black (except for shoes and belts) is dropped.

2. Road uniforms drop the vests and go back to the mid-1990s look, except without the pinstripes. Again, no black.

3. Alt is similar to the one currently worn, but again with all black removed.

[Jungle Jim]

Actually, I caught a bit of Marty Brennaman's comments during the game Sunday, and I thought he clarified that the Reds wouldn't be incorporating navy blue, but instead royal blue into their unis, like they wore in the 50s and 60s. The emailer to whom he was replying thought the changes were coming in '08, but Marty said, nope, '07 was the year. Didn't sound like he'd seen a design, but did sound like it was a done deal. I hope it's not, though. Enough with the blue and red. Been done too much. The Reds should be RED.

Art, folks at RedsZone.com who heard Marty Brennaman's comments are saying that he definitely said "no blue". I hope that's right. I haven't felt the same about the Reds since they added the black.

[BallWonk]

I am not sure if red and brick are far enough apart from each other that this would look "right", instead of looking like the uniform designer just got lazy and didn't color match properly.

. . .

But 2-tone red would be tough to pull off, IMO.

You mean like how the Angels look like the logo designer just got lazy and didn't color match properly?

I actually have a hard time imaging a way in which a Reds uniform that used "brick" or another shade of dark red as an accent color wouldn't look great. In this case, 2-tone red wouldn't be tough to pull off. It would be tough to get wrong.

[pflava]

Whatever they end up doing, I hope they drop the pinstripes.

[McCall]

Not a fan of BBM's 2-tone red idea.  And it's not to be snide and stick to my original contention that 2-tone red wouldn't look good.

In fact, it could work better than I had always believed.  But not this one.  Why?  There's no "dominant red" in the scheme.  As a result, some things are the lighter shade, and some are the darker shade.  Unlike navy/sky blue, which are clearly removed from one another on the spectrum, these reds are a little too close to be used well.

Example: On the home jersey, the numbers are dark red.  But the undershirt sleeves are bright red.  The result is that it looks like the undershirt isn't meant to go with the jersey.  Worse still, the front numbers are dark red, but the left chest logo - the "wishbone C" - is bright red.  Again - which color is the primary red that the team derived its nickname from?

The road uniform has similar problems.  The "CINCINNATI" and player numbers are bright red.  The undersleeves are dark red.  The sleeves don't look like they should be worn under that jersey.

Then there are the hats.  Bright red at home; dark red on the road.  Is anyone going to form over $25-30 for each hat?  And you'll get to the point where half the fan base is wearing the bright red hat, and the other half is wearing dark red.  Teams that wear two markedly different hats (i.e. Nationals) have it hard enough when the fan base splits along red/navy lines.  But Reds fans would look bizarre, given the smaller but still discernable difference between the two shades of red.

I'm willing to conceded that it could work.  But if the first example is any evidence, my original contention still stands.

You do realize I basically just swapped out black for maroon, right? So any gripe you have about two different hats, or undershirts not matching pretty much can be argued with the Reds' current set.

No offense or anything, but dude, you don't really make much of an argument here. Saying it works because you just changed out the black for maroon doesn't mean it does work. Putting black and red together looks totally different than putting maroon, or whatever dark red, and red together. I'm glad they're dropping black, but black and red DO work together, unlike maroon and red. That just looks wrong.

[Silver Shamrock]

Hopefully, they'll keep winning, and make the playoffs. At that point, maybe management would be more apt to leave well enough alone, uniform-wise!

Tone down the black if you must, but I'd bet that getting rid of it altogether would hurt a little at the team shop..........

I was just watching them last night @ S.F., and I don't see anything wrong with those roads that replacing the black hat and sleeves with red wouldn't fix.

[VitaminD]

I am not sure if red and brick are far enough apart from each other that this would look "right", instead of looking like the uniform designer just got lazy and didn't color match properly.

. . .

But 2-tone red would be tough to pull off, IMO.

You mean like how the Angels look like the logo designer just got lazy and didn't color match properly?

I actually have a hard time imaging a way in which a Reds uniform that used "brick" or another shade of dark red as an accent color wouldn't look great. In this case, 2-tone red wouldn't be tough to pull off. It would be tough to get wrong.

Are you comparing the Angels' current uniforms with the posted Reds' concept?

The Angels' concept has one shade of red that clearly predominates, and the darker red is used sparingly as an accent color. Everywhere else, the lighter red is used - cap color, player numbers, wordmark, and so on.

In this concept - and I am taking into account what he said, that he essentially swapped black out for brick - neither shade of red predominates. As such, it looks like the designer forgot which shade was to predominate, and the result is you have major design elements that look out of place with each other. Undersleeves that don't match the player numbers. Numbers that don't match the wordmark.

As I said a few posts back, I'm willing to concede that it could work, and the Angels bear that out. But if what's been shown is any evidence, my original contention still stands, that it'd be tough to pull off - unless the brick is used as sparingly as it was used by the Angels. However, if the Reds attempt to use brick as extensively as they've used black (to the point where red and black are essentially co-dominant), it would fail like the Hindenburg.