1960 AFL Photos Thread

[leopard88]

97 - nice shot of the Seahawks' original road set

Not to pick nits, but that isn't the original road set. That is the second set, which added the birdhead stripe to the sleeves.

Come to think of it, nitpicking is why we're all here, so I guess that was my intention.

[Gothamite]

yeah - without nitpicking, this would be a pretty barren board.

[jojotarantino]

How confident are we in descriptions like "Pacific Blue" v. "Collegiate Blue," "Columbia Blue" or even "Powder Blue", anyway? They're just names.

The SSUR has the Chargers in one shade of blue throughout their AFL days. It appears to be a little lighter than the blue of their throwbacks, but not the slate shade of your graphic.

My graphic? That's from the Chargers' own website!

In any case, one look at pics from that era shows without question that their original shade (and what they wore in '63) was much darker and nowhere near the electric powder blue they're trying to pass off as their '63 colors now.

And P.S...the '63 gold is darker too.

These pictures aren't a good comparison. That John Hadl Sporting News is dated 1968 and that Alworth picture is from 1966 or after because of the yellow pants. I don't think fabric colors in the 1960's were consistent year to year as they are now. So even if they were to say it was Pacific Blue or Collegiate Blue, who knows how they really differed year to year.

[darkhaha]

Here are a few photos to try to shed some light on this subject...

The first one is helpful, I think, because we can compare the Chargers' blue to the Oilers' (and I think the Oilers' blue for '64-65 was actually a little darker than it would later become, but that's a whole different can of worms!):

Even accounting for differences in lighting conditions, photographic equipment, the chain of custody of the photo, etc., the blue in the following pic from 1970 seems demonstrably lighter to me:

As for the idea that the Chargers never changed their blue at all during the 60s, these photos of the widely forgotten 1967 set should put that to rest:

[Gothamite]

Again, for the reasons outlined above, photos are not conclusive evidence of anything when it comes to fine-tuning color. Not today, not in 1960 (look how dark the color in those photos is in general - unless we are also to believe that the Jets wore hunter green, and not kelly, in 1967).

If that's the only evidence to support a color change, it might as well have no support at all.

Donovan's track record is outstanding. I'll take his work over photos anyday.

[In 5..4..3..2..1]

It's fuuny how the Chargers jerseys are no doubt darker in those photos but if you look closely the bolt on the pants and the socks are considerably lighter.

[darkhaha]

Again, for the reasons outlined above, photos are not conclusive evidence of anything when it comes to fine-tuning color. Not today, not in 1960 (look how dark the color in those photos is in general - unless we are also to believe that the Jets wore hunter green, and not kelly, in 1967).

If that's the only evidence to support a color change, it might as well have no support at all.

Donovan's track record is outstanding. I'll take his work over photos anyday.

This sort of reminds me of the old Richard Pryor bit: "Who you gonna believe -- me or your lyin' eyes?"

I also hold Donovan's work in high regard, and I do understand your point about not drawing definitive conclusions from comparisons of different photographs. However, the beauty of the 1967 Chargers photos above is that you can clearly see the difference,in the same photo, between the very dark jersey and the much lighter socks and bolt stripe on the pants. This is pretty conclusive proof that they did not have the same color blue throughout the 60s, as the SSUR color history would have us believe. Now, it is true that the '67 set was a one-year anomaly and may have no bearing on the alleged evolution of the Collegiate-Powder blue. But the 1967 photos do show that the SSUR research is not infallible, IMHO....

[Gothamite]

Unless the socks and pant stripes were made out of durene, there's not necessarily an inconsistency. Different fabrics and other materials reflect light differently, and as such can show up as different shades depending on the lighting. See just about any white helmet in the NFL - if they match the white jerseys in photos under natural light, they won't under artificial light, etc.

Photos lie. That's the essential nature of photography.

[NJTank]

These pics are awesome

[darkhaha]

Unless the socks and pant stripes were made out of durene, there's not necessarily an inconsistency. Different fabrics and other materials reflect light differently, and as such can show up as different shades depending on the lighting. See just about any white helmet in the NFL - if they match the white jerseys in photos under natural light, they won't under artificial light, etc.

Photos lie. That's the essential nature of photography.

Wow. So you really believe that the jerseys and socks in those photos from '67 were actually the same color?

Durene is not a material, by the way. It's a coating that was/is put on the jersey to make it more resilient. (I'm not trying to sound snarky -- I didn't know this either until Terry Proctor, aka Bulldogpark, set me straight awhile back...)

[BlueSky]

97 - nice shot of the Seahawks' original road set

Not to pick nits, but that isn't the original road set. That is the second set, which added the birdhead stripe to the sleeves.

Come to think of it, nitpicking is why we're all here, so I guess that was my intention.

My mistake and a poor choice of words. By 'original' I actually meant before the set with blue helmets came along.

Again, for the reasons outlined above, photos are not conclusive evidence of anything when it comes to fine-tuning color. Not today, not in 1960 (look how dark the color in those photos is in general - unless we are also to believe that the Jets wore hunter green, and not kelly, in 1967).

If that's the only evidence to support a color change, it might as well have no support at all.

Donovan's track record is outstanding. I'll take his work over photos anyday.

That may be the problem here. I'm not talking about 'fine tuning' - I'm saying that the original Chargers blue was significantly darker than powder blue. They didn't wear powder blue until 1968 and thus the Legacy "1963" jersey is inaccurate. That - the accuracy of the Legacy jersey - has been my only point all along and it's very clear from the evidence put forth from different sources that it is indeed inaccurate. And BTW, the pics support the timeline on the Chargers' site, including the very dark blue in 1967. Also note the Lance Alworth card from 1968 showing him wearing powder blue. I never said they didn't WEAR powder blue - I said they didn't wear it in 1963.

They also wore that 'All-American City' or whatever decal on the front of their helmets in '63. Are they wearing those this year? Don't think they are but they're still calling their Legacy unis 1963 editions. I just don't get it.

Gothamite, I must confess to being astounded that you refuse to accept PHOTOS OF THE ACTUAL UNIS as proof they were a different color. If we only had one picture, sure, you'd be right. But there are multiple pics from different years that support the Chargers' site timeline.

Are you one of those people who thinks Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were in a soundstage somewhere?

[jojotarantino]

Here are a few photos to try to shed some light on this subject...

The first one is helpful, I think, because we can compare the Chargers' blue to the Oilers' (and I think the Oilers' blue for '64-65 was actually a little darker than it would later become, but that's a whole different can of worms!):

Even accounting for differences in lighting conditions, photographic equipment, the chain of custody of the photo, etc., the blue in the following pic from 1970 seems demonstrably lighter to me:

As for the idea that the Chargers never changed their blue at all during the 60s, these photos of the widely forgotten 1967 set should put that to rest:

The shade that they are using falls in between that 1965 picture and the 1970 picture. On TV and in photos, the current jerseys always seem to show as a lighter shad than what they really are. I have a couple of authentics directly from the equipment room, not ones that were purchased. They are darker than what they seem on TV and in photos. They are also more shiny.

[Gothamite]

Gothamite, I must confess to being astounded that you refuse to accept PHOTOS OF THE ACTUAL UNIS as proof they were a different color. If we only had one picture, sure, you'd be right. But there are multiple pics from different years that support the Chargers' site timeline.

Are you one of those people who thinks Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were in a soundstage somewhere?

They tell us that the Chargers used a light blue (as opposed to royal or navy). But as far as confirming for us that the shade of light blue was lighter or darker than any given value, or that the Chargers changed the specific shade at any point, no sir. Photos cannot conclusively prove any such thing.

I work in film. I know how cameras lie. That is, again, the essential nature of photography - the creation of an unreal image from life. Planes are flattened, colors shift. Color photos, while invaluable tools for our research, themselves prove nothing about specific color shades (unless they contain a color correction card or something sufficiently reliable by which we may correct our own monitors).

If anyone can compare game-used jerseys side by side, that would be evidence. Even if we had a picture of players wearing different years' jerseys (as we sometimes see in training camp, especially of the period, some players wearing their old uniforms and some wearing new uniforms), that would be evidence. But to look at Photo A in isolation, then Photo B in isolation, and try to draw some definitive conclusion from it, that's not enough for me to say that ColorWerx is wrong.

That is, to get back to the original question, why I think nobody's raised any fuss about the relative inaccuracies of the Chargers' throwback uniforms. The nature of those original uniforms isn't sufficiently clear for us to throw stones. We might all think that they're using the wrong shade (I'd tend to suspect that they are), but until we know what that right shade is, what's the point?

And Darkjhaha, thanks for setting me straight about Durene. I wasn't aware of that. Still, it buttresses my point that the jerseys are made of a different (in this case coated) material, and would be expected to react differently from something like socks (which I presume were not coated) or tackle twill.

[BlueSky]

Gothamite, I must confess to being astounded that you refuse to accept PHOTOS OF THE ACTUAL UNIS as proof they were a different color. If we only had one picture, sure, you'd be right. But there are multiple pics from different years that support the Chargers' site timeline.

Are you one of those people who thinks Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were in a soundstage somewhere?

They tell us that the Chargers used a light blue (as opposed to royal or navy). But as far as confirming for us that the shade of light blue was lighter or darker than any given value, or that the Chargers changed the specific shade at any point, no sir. Photos cannot conclusively prove any such thing.

I work in film. I know how cameras lie. That is, again, the essential nature of photography - the creation of an unreal image from life. Planes are flattened, colors shift. Color photos, while invaluable tools for our research, themselves prove nothing about specific color shades (unless they contain a color correction card or something sufficiently reliable by which we may correct our own monitors).

If anyone can compare game-used jerseys side by side, that would be evidence. Even if we had a picture of players wearing different years' jerseys (as we sometimes see in training camp, especially of the period, some players wearing their old uniforms and some wearing new uniforms), that would be evidence. But to look at Photo A in isolation, then Photo B in isolation, and try to draw some definitive conclusion from it, that's not enough for me to say that ColorWerx is wrong.

That is, to get back to the original question, why I think nobody's raised any fuss about the relative inaccuracies of the Chargers' throwback uniforms. The nature of those original uniforms isn't sufficiently clear for us to throw stones. We might all think that they're using the wrong shade (I'd tend to suspect that they are), but until we know what that right shade is, what's the point?

I e-mailed Paul Lukas again out of sheer curiosity at why he seems unconcerned (or unaware) about the Chargers' blue. While his response surprised me, it makes sense and I appreciated his taking the time to address it. He said:

===

There are lots of things they've gotten wrong, for each team. I've decided not to belabor each mistake and instead just enjoy the throwbacks for what they are.

===

Fair enough and a good approach, though a little puzzling from a guy who does what he does. When I wrote back I included this pic showing the darker blue and asked about the 'forehead' decal that was worn in '63 but isn't apparently a part of the throwback uni:

His reply was pretty funny:

===

!!! I forgot to mention that the throwbacks should have included the San Diego shield on the helmet! Now THAT'S an oversight worth mentioning!!!

===

Gothamite, I understand your points about film but...isn't it legitimate to judge colors in a specific photo on a relative basis? The photo above for example. The skintones look good, the Patriots' colors look accurate, and so on, so can we not extrapolate from those factors and say it's a fairly accurate depiction of the Chargers' blue? Obviously eyeballing it isn't an exact science but isn't it possible to reach a reasonable conclusion?

[Billy B]

Wow, it even looks like the Chargers defensive lineman in Blue Sky's picture is wearing cuffed sleeves that are very similar to what is worn now.

[Gothamite]

Gothamite, I understand your points about film but...isn't it legitimate to judge colors in a specific photo on a relative basis? The photo above for example. The skintones look good, the Patriots' colors look accurate, and so on, so can we not extrapolate from those factors and say it's a fairly accurate depiction of the Chargers' blue? Obviously eyeballing it isn't an exact science but isn't it possible to reach a reasonable conclusion?

A reasonable conclusion? Perhaps. But not necessarily reasonable enough to say that the Chargers are wrong. Developing techniques will impact some shades more than others. And that's presuming that the photos were ever truly reflective of the real thing, considering that some shades will respond to lighting conditions far more than others.

That's why you photographers spend money on color charts and never expose them to light except in use (for fear of fading the colors).

Without a solid reference like that, color estimates are little more than guesswork.

Can we make broad generalizations about the colors based on those photos? Sure. But can we say with any specificity or confidence that the Chargers' website graphic is more accurate than Donovan's color card? No.

And that's why, getting back to the original question, I think nobody cares about the inaccurate color of the throwbacks - we can only talk about their error in the broadest of terms, and without being able to offer constructive criticism (it should be shade A, not B), it sort of seems beside the point. The Packers' 1994 throwbacks were the wrong color as well - should have been more of a Yankees' midnight-almost-black-navy instead of the lighter navy they wore on the field - but given modern materials they were probably as close as we're likely to see.

[BlueSky]

Gothamite, I understand your points about film but...isn't it legitimate to judge colors in a specific photo on a relative basis? The photo above for example. The skintones look good, the Patriots' colors look accurate, and so on, so can we not extrapolate from those factors and say it's a fairly accurate depiction of the Chargers' blue? Obviously eyeballing it isn't an exact science but isn't it possible to reach a reasonable conclusion?

A reasonable conclusion? Perhaps. But not necessarily reasonable enough to say that the Chargers are wrong. Developing techniques will impact some shades more than others. And that's presuming that the photos were ever truly reflective of the real thing, considering that some shades will respond to lighting conditions far more than others.

That's why you photographers spend money on color charts and never expose them to light except in use (for fear of fading the colors).

Without a solid reference like that, color estimates are little more than guesswork.

Can we make broad generalizations about the colors based on those photos? Sure. But can we say with any specificity or confidence that the Chargers' website graphic is more accurate than Donovan's color card? No.

And that's why, getting back to the original question, I think nobody cares about the inaccurate color of the throwbacks - we can only talk about their error in the broadest of terms, and without being able to offer constructive criticism (it should be shade A, not B), it sort of seems beside the point. The Packers' 1994 throwbacks were the wrong color as well - should have been more of a Yankees' midnight-almost-black-navy instead of the lighter navy they wore on the field - but given modern materials they were probably as close as we're likely to see.

All fair points. I stick with my assertion though that it's ridiculous that organizations with the resources of the NFL or even an individual team can't get this stuff right, or at least pretty damn close.

[slats7]

1967

[Gothamite]

All fair points. I stick with my assertion though that it's ridiculous that organizations with the resources of the NFL or even an individual team can't get this stuff right, or at least pretty damn close.

Except in this case the Chargers disagree with the Chargers. They have made errors somewhere, we just don't know where.

[Gothamite]

1967

See, now we know the truth about the Chargers' old jerseys - powder blue numbers!