SF 49ers

[walkdesign]

I say they look 50 times better than what they wear now. They did a horrible job of incorporating the black in their current uniforms. I don't see how they could be more popular with the fans than the throwbacks.

Did they do a horrible job of incorporating black into the uniform, or do you just not like black in the uniform? I think they did a wonderful job because it is an accent and doesn't overpower the red and gold (which is the good thing about black). I also find it funny that someone with a Lions signature is saying someone ELSE did a horrible job incorporating black.

[DenverJ]

The old ones look.... well, old.

I have no problem bringing out the old uniforms for 1 game to honor Bill Walsh. But, enough is enough!!

The current look they have now is fine.

[BlueSky]

The Montana-era unis only had one flaw. That pants stripe needed to be just a little wider.

The new ones are ok but seem like another example of black being added "just because." Thumbs down on that.

[hecticbro]

The current Niners uniforms are miles better than the old ones. Look at that shirt! It's red. With some white stripes. And plain white numbers.... Maybe it could work for, hmmm.... The Cardinals?.... 50 years ago?

[Mac the Knife]

I dunno. Either one works for me. Maybe the Yorks could save a few bucks and do the retro look only for home games... the 49'ers roads of that era were pretty plain as well.

[leedsunited]

Two things about the current Niners set:

1. Black doesn't belong there, and was just added because some marketing suits thought, "hey, black merchandise sells!"

2. Any team that feels the need to "double-up" the logo presence by having the same image on sleeve and helmet? Lame.

[patsox]

I hope they don't go retro. What they wear presently is fine.

[powersurge]

Hmmmm...a 49ers bashing thread? I'm in!

I never really liked the old Niners uniforms. Maybe it was the shade of red or gold they used that bothered me, but I just never liked them. Vegas gold just doesn't work for me.

The new unis might be a bit busy, but I think they finally nailed the color shades in the red and gold and added just enough black to the ENTIRE uniform to unify the look. It used to bother the crap out of me that the oval on the helmet had a pretty prominent black stripe around it, but the rest of the uni didn't have black at all. Not to mention the fact that there was waaaay too much white in the old ones too.

I think they got it right this time and I personally hope they keep it this way.

BTW, so how long till this thread turns back into a Cowboys mis matching blues bashing party?

[TruColor]

It used to bother the crap out of me that the oval on the helmet had a pretty prominent black stripe around it, but the rest of the uni didn't have black at all.

Which still bugs me about the Chiefs' unis. Black in the logo - none in the uniforms...and, Gold in the uniforms, but not in the logo.

BTW, so how long till this thread turns back into a Cowboys mis matching blues bashing party?

I promise to keep that out of this thread!

[-(dp)-]

I say they look 50 times better than what they wear now. They did a horrible job of incorporating the black in their current uniforms. I don't see how they could be more popular with the fans than the throwbacks.

Did they do a horrible job of incorporating black into the uniform, or do you just not like black in the uniform? I think they did a wonderful job because it is an accent and doesn't overpower the red and gold (which is the good thing about black). I also find it funny that someone with a Lions signature is saying someone ELSE did a horrible job incorporating black.

And why do you find that funny? I am not one to get involved in arguments on here, but I will never understand why people think the niners did a good job incorporating the black, and the lions didn't. Are you saying the lions added it as more than an accent? I think the black added in the lions uniform was just enough to make the blue 'pop', while the 49ers added way too much. The white in the niners home jerseys looks out of place now, with no white in the pants or helmet (other than the logo.) The lions black alternate may be too much, but I think the black in the home and away for the lions looks good. While I don't think the 49ers current unis are horrible, IMO the throwbacks were much cleaner. Is it okay with you if I have an opinion? I just want somebody to give me a valid argument on how the niners added black without overpowering the uniform, but the lions didn't. Here you can see how the lions did a better job with the black.

Anyways, I think the throwbacks looked great last time they wore them:

[TruColor]

...but I will never understand why people think the niners did a good job incorporating the black, and the lions didn't. Are you saying the lions added it as more than an accent? I think the black added in the lions uniform was just enough to make the blue 'pop', while the 49ers added way too much. The white in the niners home jerseys looks out of place now, with no white in the pants or helmet (other than the logo.) The lions black alternate may be too much, but I think the black in the home and away for the lions looks good. While I don't think the 49ers current unis are horrible, IMO the throwbacks were much cleaner. Is it okay with you if I have an opinion? I just want somebody to give me a valid argument on how the niners added black without overpowering the uniform, but the lions didn't. Here you can see how the lions did a better job with the black...

What I'll say is that although the Lions certainly DID need an accent color (especially for the White jerseys), the way they incorporated it was badly done. The teeny-tiny Black trim on the helmet and pant stripes are just terrible. They should have just come up with a new striping pattern IMO. And, the Black in the "Northwestern" striping on the sleeves is just forced in there.

Oh - and if there's any team that should have gone with Navy trim, it was the Lions. Black was a bad choice.

[Jimmy!]

I say they look 50 times better than what they wear now. They did a horrible job of incorporating the black in their current uniforms. I don't see how they could be more popular with the fans than the throwbacks.

Did they do a horrible job of incorporating black into the uniform, or do you just not like black in the uniform? I think they did a wonderful job because it is an accent and doesn't overpower the red and gold (which is the good thing about black). I also find it funny that someone with a Lions signature is saying someone ELSE did a horrible job incorporating black.

And why do you find that funny? I am not one to get involved in arguments on here, but I will never understand why people think the niners did a good job incorporating the black, and the lions didn't. Are you saying the lions added it as more than an accent? I think the black added in the lions uniform was just enough to make the blue 'pop', while the 49ers added way too much. The white in the niners home jerseys looks out of place now, with no white in the pants or helmet (other than the logo.) The lions black alternate may be too much, but I think the black in the home and away for the lions looks good. While I don't think the 49ers current unis are horrible, IMO the throwbacks were much cleaner. Is it okay with you if I have an opinion? I just want somebody to give me a valid argument on how the niners added black without overpowering the uniform, but the lions didn't. Here you can see how the lions did a better job with the black.

Anyways, I think the throwbacks looked great last time they wore them:

It's the black in combination with the darker shade of red that doesn't work. Makes it look too muddy.

And on behalf of Seahawk fans, thank you for showing Frank Gore running over Lofa.

[-(dp)-]

...but I will never understand why people think the niners did a good job incorporating the black, and the lions didn't. Are you saying the lions added it as more than an accent? I think the black added in the lions uniform was just enough to make the blue 'pop', while the 49ers added way too much. The white in the niners home jerseys looks out of place now, with no white in the pants or helmet (other than the logo.) The lions black alternate may be too much, but I think the black in the home and away for the lions looks good. While I don't think the 49ers current unis are horrible, IMO the throwbacks were much cleaner. Is it okay with you if I have an opinion? I just want somebody to give me a valid argument on how the niners added black without overpowering the uniform, but the lions didn't. Here you can see how the lions did a better job with the black...

What I'll say is that although the Lions certainly DID need an accent color (especially for the White jerseys), the way they incorporated it was badly done. The teeny-tiny Black trim on the helmet and pant stripes are just terrible. They should have just come up with a new striping pattern IMO. And, the Black in the "Northwestern" striping on the sleeves is just forced in there.

Oh - and if there's any team that should have gone with Navy trim, it was the Lions. Black was a bad choice.

hmm... I might have to do a concept of what it could look like with navy.

[63Bulldogs63]

I have to agree with those who want the classic uniform back. The niners looked so much better in them, than they do now. I was against the color and uniform update when it first happened. Although, I'd say that the first two years were better looking than now. With the white pants. The new gold just doesn't fit. And there are way too many logos in the uniform, I mean come on now, everyone can see the helmet, no need for the pants and sleeves to need it too. THe logo on the sleeve clutters the stripes, not to mention the black as well.

I know my opinion will be shot down and all, but the niners had it right. Shoot, I'd even accept the Steve Young Super Bowl era uni. With the white pants and yeah...i know bad, but still better than the present.

[powersurge]

It used to bother the crap out of me that the oval on the helmet had a pretty prominent black stripe around it, but the rest of the uni didn't have black at all.

Which still bugs me about the Chiefs' unis. Black in the logo - none in the uniforms...and, Gold in the uniforms, but not in the logo.

BTW, so how long till this thread turns back into a Cowboys mis matching blues bashing party?

I promise to keep that out of this thread!

I actually forgot to mention that...That bugs me too.

I will bet almost anything that when the Chiefs get a complete uni redesign (probably in the next two or three years) we'll see:

1. Both Yellow and Black incorporated in the helmet AND uni

2. The Arrowhead logo with a more 3D look (kind of like what the Vikings did with their horns)

...and 3. a Viking/Cardinals-esque striping to the uniforms and pants

In other words...its gonna suck! You can bet on it.

[BallWonk]

That's the thing: Those gold pants with the wide red-white-red stripes were awesome. Made the uniform. Kind of didn't matter what the shirt looked like as long as those pants and the 49ers helmets were in play. The helmets and the pants were perfectly matched, giving the whole uniform great visual balance. The fact that the shirts and the socks were also perfectly balanced with each other was just gravy.

See - there's one statement in here that's NOT subjective. The helmets and pants were deliberately unmatched - they used two completely different colors to represent them:

OK, by "perfectly matched" I was talking about the repetition of color blocks and striping patterns, not the precise hues. Hadn't even occurred to me that they might be different shades of gold.

Question: the gloss coating of the helmets will make any color applied to the helmet appear to be brighter, no? In he case of metallic gold, more brightness will make the color look less dark than it really is. Isn't it good design to choose colors based on their apparent values in real-world conditions, even if that means using a darker shade of gold for your helmet, where colors will appear to be brighter than they are, than for your less glossy pants? In my own glancing experience with the matter, I have yet to see a Pantone-valued fabric sample that wasn't visibly distinguishable from the supposedly identical shade of Pantone-valued coated ink. If you want to perfectly match, say, your sales staff's polo shirts with the printed banner at their conference booth with your company's brand&reg-approved logo colors, you have to choose slightly different values of each. Or anyway you did a decade ago when I used to do that sort of thing.

[powersurge]

That's the thing: Those gold pants with the wide red-white-red stripes were awesome. Made the uniform. Kind of didn't matter what the shirt looked like as long as those pants and the 49ers helmets were in play. The helmets and the pants were perfectly matched, giving the whole uniform great visual balance. The fact that the shirts and the socks were also perfectly balanced with each other was just gravy.

See - there's one statement in here that's NOT subjective. The helmets and pants were deliberately unmatched - they used two completely different colors to represent them:

OK, by "perfectly matched" I was talking about the repetition of color blocks and striping patterns, not the precise hues. Hadn't even occurred to me that they might be different shades of gold.

Question: the gloss coating of the helmets will make any color applied to the helmet appear to be brighter, no? In he case of metallic gold, more brightness will make the color look less dark than it really is. Isn't it good design to choose colors based on their apparent values in real-world conditions, even if that means using a darker shade of gold for your helmet, where colors will appear to be brighter than they are, than for your less glossy pants? In my own glancing experience with the matter, I have yet to see a Pantone-valued fabric sample that wasn't visibly distinguishable from the supposedly identical shade of Pantone-valued coated ink. If you want to perfectly match, say, your sales staff's polo shirts with the printed banner at their conference booth with your company's brand&reg-approved logo colors, you have to choose slightly different values of each. Or anyway you did a decade ago when I used to do that sort of thing.

Is this a good time to start talking about the mismatched Cowboys silvers?

[TruColor]

Question: the gloss coating of the helmets will make any color applied to the helmet appear to be brighter, no? In he case of metallic gold, more brightness will make the color look less dark than it really is. Isn't it good design to choose colors based on their apparent values in real-world conditions, even if that means using a darker shade of gold for your helmet, where colors will appear to be brighter than they are, than for your less glossy pants? In my own glancing experience with the matter, I have yet to see a Pantone-valued fabric sample that wasn't visibly distinguishable from the supposedly identical shade of Pantone-valued coated ink. If you want to perfectly match, say, your sales staff's polo shirts with the printed banner at their conference booth with your company's brand&reg-approved logo colors, you have to choose slightly different values of each. Or anyway you did a decade ago when I used to do that sort of thing.

Oh of course, that's all 100% true. Metallics are a mess to match up with fabrics/threads/twill, etc. More often than not, a fabric will be matched up with the "flat", non-metallic alternate color than the actual metallic. And, that's true especially with the older 49ers helmet/pants combo. My main point was that the older Niners set is one of the few that I've come across that intentionally specified the difference. I have a 1987 NFL Style Guide, and the difference is remarkable on the physical sheet. Of course, translating the printed page to fabrics - as you said - is not an exact science.

It's interesting that you bring this up...I'm in the middle of addressing these very issues right now...hopefully to help designers...I'll elaborate more in due time...

[SmoothieX]

[LEWJ]

A little off subject... But is it me, or do the stripes on Ronnie Lott's Jersey go about 3/4 of the way around. It doesn't look like they go all the way around the sleeve. It mite be the shadow, but I don't think so...

Anyway, I think it's a great idea to do this, I really think they should wear throwbacks for the season. I like them more than what they have now, But I still hold the question--Why No Gold On The Jersey?

If they incorporated some gold into the jersey, it would be a perfect, permanent look, IMO.