Then and Now

[BBTV]

It's a pretty damn good look as is. I def wouldn'tl add that white outline, and I think I like the yellow facemask better, but I'd have to see it with navy. I guess in 2010, navy would be what they'd go with.

I'm torn about the pants though. It does look great with white pants, but I've always been partial to yellow pants - especially on the road. Somthing about dark-white-yellow really appeals to me.

I think the reasoning is that all the other bolts on both uniforms have two outlines. I'd prefer to ditch the white insert on the shoulders and go with just the bolt, like they did on their previous set.

I'm not sure I understand. The helmet bolts and sleeve bolts appear the same - yellow bolt with navy and then white outline. The numbers are yellow with navy and white outline. Looks to me like everything is pretty much the same - what am I missing?

[Ted Cunningham]

Something about dark-white-yellow really appeals to me.

Agreed. The Redskins should consider going back to that.

[andrewharrington]

It's a pretty damn good look as is. I def wouldn'tl add that white outline, and I think I like the yellow facemask better, but I'd have to see it with navy. I guess in 2010, navy would be what they'd go with.

I'm torn about the pants though. It does look great with white pants, but I've always been partial to yellow pants - especially on the road. Somthing about dark-white-yellow really appeals to me.

I think the reasoning is that all the other bolts on both uniforms have two outlines. I'd prefer to ditch the white insert on the shoulders and go with just the bolt, like they did on their previous set.

I'm not sure I understand. The helmet bolts and sleeve bolts appear the same - yellow bolt with navy and then white outline. The numbers are yellow with navy and white outline. Looks to me like everything is pretty much the same - what am I missing?

The bolt on the shoulder of the blue jersey is yellow, with a single blue outline. It's applied to a white insert, which, to me, does not count as having a white outline, though I can see that's where you're going with it. I read the pattern separate from the background. All the other bolts on the uniforms are yellow, with a blue outline, then a white outline, which in turn are applied to a solid blue helmet or a blue insert on the jersey or pants. IceCap is suggesting the bolt be yellow with a white outline, then a blue outline so that all the bolts have two outlines.

A picture is worth a thousand words, though, so to illustrate:

Neither is wrong or right, which is exactly why I don't think making everything 'matching' or 'consistent' is a good solution for a uniform. Everyone's definition is different and some brains read patterns differently than others.

[BBTV]

It's a pretty damn good look as is. I def wouldn'tl add that white outline, and I think I like the yellow facemask better, but I'd have to see it with navy. I guess in 2010, navy would be what they'd go with.

I'm torn about the pants though. It does look great with white pants, but I've always been partial to yellow pants - especially on the road. Somthing about dark-white-yellow really appeals to me.

I think the reasoning is that all the other bolts on both uniforms have two outlines. I'd prefer to ditch the white insert on the shoulders and go with just the bolt, like they did on their previous set.

I'm not sure I understand. The helmet bolts and sleeve bolts appear the same - yellow bolt with navy and then white outline. The numbers are yellow with navy and white outline. Looks to me like everything is pretty much the same - what am I missing?

The bolt on the shoulder of the blue jersey is yellow, with a single blue outline. It's applied to a white insert, which, to me, does not count as having a white outline, though I can see that's where you're going with it. I read the pattern separate from the background. All the other bolts on the uniforms are yellow, with a blue outline, then a white outline, which in turn are applied to a solid blue helmet or a blue insert on the jersey or pants. IceCap is suggesting the bolt be yellow with a white outline, then a blue outline so that all the bolts have two outlines.

OK, I get it. I guess it's just one of those times where I think that the minor inconsistency doesn't matter, and it looks good as-is. If anything, I'd say drop the white insert and replace with a white outline. That would be preferable to a white outline directly against the yellow bolt. I think that if they had navy pants though, they would probably have a white insert that would match the shoulder one, so I'd vote for it to stay, even if it meant that the bolt was technically different than it is on the helmet.

[andrewharrington]

It's a pretty damn good look as is. I def wouldn'tl add that white outline, and I think I like the yellow facemask better, but I'd have to see it with navy. I guess in 2010, navy would be what they'd go with.

I'm torn about the pants though. It does look great with white pants, but I've always been partial to yellow pants - especially on the road. Somthing about dark-white-yellow really appeals to me.

I think the reasoning is that all the other bolts on both uniforms have two outlines. I'd prefer to ditch the white insert on the shoulders and go with just the bolt, like they did on their previous set.

I'm not sure I understand. The helmet bolts and sleeve bolts appear the same - yellow bolt with navy and then white outline. The numbers are yellow with navy and white outline. Looks to me like everything is pretty much the same - what am I missing?

The bolt on the shoulder of the blue jersey is yellow, with a single blue outline. It's applied to a white insert, which, to me, does not count as having a white outline, though I can see that's where you're going with it. I read the pattern separate from the background. All the other bolts on the uniforms are yellow, with a blue outline, then a white outline, which in turn are applied to a solid blue helmet or a blue insert on the jersey or pants. IceCap is suggesting the bolt be yellow with a white outline, then a blue outline so that all the bolts have two outlines.

OK, I get it. I guess it's just one of those times where I think that the minor inconsistency doesn't matter, and it looks good as-is. If anything, I'd say drop the white insert and replace with a white outline. That would be preferable to a white outline directly against the yellow bolt. I think that if they had navy pants though, they would probably have a white insert that would match the shoulder one, so I'd vote for it to stay, even if it meant that the bolt was technically different than it is on the helmet.

Which, I think, is basically what they did when they went to the 90's era set: dropped the white insert on the shoulder of the blue jersey so all the bolts matched and changed the dominant coloring from yellow to white. When they ha those navy pants, they just had the bolt, no stripe, correct? Those were pretty good looking, and the consistency-lovers adore them.

[Harmening]

It's a pretty damn good look as is. I def wouldn'tl add that white outline, and I think I like the yellow facemask better, but I'd have to see it with navy. I guess in 2010, navy would be what they'd go with.

I'm torn about the pants though. It does look great with white pants, but I've always been partial to yellow pants - especially on the road. Somthing about dark-white-yellow really appeals to me.

I think the reasoning is that all the other bolts on both uniforms have two outlines. I'd prefer to ditch the white insert on the shoulders and go with just the bolt, like they did on their previous set.

I'm not sure I understand. The helmet bolts and sleeve bolts appear the same - yellow bolt with navy and then white outline. The numbers are yellow with navy and white outline. Looks to me like everything is pretty much the same - what am I missing?

The bolt on the shoulder of the blue jersey is yellow, with a single blue outline. It's applied to a white insert, which, to me, does not count as having a white outline, though I can see that's where you're going with it. I read the pattern separate from the background. All the other bolts on the uniforms are yellow, with a blue outline, then a white outline, which in turn are applied to a solid blue helmet or a blue insert on the jersey or pants. IceCap is suggesting the bolt be yellow with a white outline, then a blue outline so that all the bolts have two outlines.

A picture is worth a thousand words, though, so to illustrate:

Neither is wrong or right, which is exactly why I don't think making everything 'matching' or 'consistent' is a good solution for a uniform. Everyone's definition is different and some brains read patterns differently than others.

Hmm. Not a fan of the white outline between the yellow and blue. Looks too 'fat', or something.

[Gothamite]

I agree. The white outline blends into the gold bolt. Doesn't read.

I'm with Vet. The white outline can be implied by the white background.

[oldschoolvikings]

I agree. The white outline blends into the gold bolt. Doesn't read.

I'm with Vet. The white outline can be implied by the white background.

Thirded.

[leopard88]

Additionally, whenever I look at something that is double outlined and the first outline is the same color as the medium upon which the logo appears, I look at the first outline as negative space and the second as an offset stroke. I'm not the only one who looks at it this way am I?

No, you're not.

[leopard88]

Additionally, whenever I look at something that is double outlined and the first outline is the same color as the medium upon which the logo appears, I look at the first outline as negative space and the second as an offset stroke. I'm not the only one who looks at it this way am I?

No, you're not.

EDIT: I feel the same way about stripes. For example, I don't see the Colts' pant stripes as blue-white-blue. Instead, I see them as two blue stripes on a white background.

[IceCap]

I agree. The white outline blends into the gold bolt. Doesn't read.

I'm with Vet. The white outline can be implied by the white background.

Thirded.

Um....um....um....

Hold on, I'll think of something....

Communists! Yes, that'll do.

[powersurge]

That is a great helmet. Colorado State should go to that version.

Packers should go back to the 1960s look.

While they look interesting...I prefer the simplified and suggestive version used today. I find myself gravitating towards simplified helmet elements. I find them cleaner and sleaker looking. Perfect example are the old Philly Eagles silver wings or the Minnesota Vikings horns. Simpler tends to be better IMO.

[Norseman]

Another shot of the Oilers' metallic blue:

Love those.

And we even have the elusive Steelers' "cape" jerseys!

Almost without exception, having grown up in the 70s, I much prefer the NFL/AFL uniforms of the 1960's/70's.

With every rule, there is an exception that offers the proof thereof, and this is the one. The Steelers' "Batman" jerseys were as bad as any of the cartoonish uniforms of today's NFL, IMHO.

I'll go on record as saying I like the 1st edition Bengals uniforms much better than the striped ones that followed, though it's interesting that Paul Brown once considered horizontal stripes on the original helmet.

I like the Rams blues and whites, the early 70's Dolphins, the '69-'76 Vikes, the 1966-73 Chargers, the 1960's Chiefs, the 1960's/70's Colts...could go on and on. Wish they had banned colored facemasks, too.

Ah, the good old days....

[9erssteve]

As one of the three Jaguars fans in this community, I guess I'll do them.

From the very beginning...

Wow, where did you find this? I've seen that logo before but never seen the uni's that would have gone with it. Does anyone else have any other shots from other angles? I'd love to know exactly what's going on over the right shoulder and neck line!

9erssteve

[Gothamite]

That pic gets posted from time to time. The shoulders looked like this:

[9erssteve]

That pic gets posted from time to time. The shoulders looked like this:

So there was only gonna be tv numbers on one side? How would that have complied with the regulations surrounding numbering, which I'm sure was in effect in 1995 as it is today?

Have to be honest I'm not a big fan, the Jags have had a few less than successful incarnations with regards uni's but even those beat the heck out of that! Kinda glad it never came to pass.

9erssteve

[Quillz]

That's really neat. I actually am a fan of the original Jaguars logo that was intended for use. It had a sense of motion and speed that simply isn't captured in their current, somewhat unintended, logo package. Shame they had a legal stint with Ford over it... I wish there was a gentleman's agreement that let the Jags keep that logo, because it's much better than what they use today.

[IceCap]

That's really neat. I actually am a fan of the original Jaguars logo that was intended for use. It had a sense of motion and speed that simply isn't captured in their current, somewhat unintended, logo package. Shame they had a legal stint with Ford over it... I wish there was a gentleman's agreement that let the Jags keep that logo, because it's much better than what they use today.

Agreed. I even like those prototype Jags uniforms.

[Quillz]

That's really neat. I actually am a fan of the original Jaguars logo that was intended for use. It had a sense of motion and speed that simply isn't captured in their current, somewhat unintended, logo package. Shame they had a legal stint with Ford over it... I wish there was a gentleman's agreement that let the Jags keep that logo, because it's much better than what they use today.

Agreed. I even like those prototype Jags uniforms.

As do I. I've always liked jerseys that attempt to use the primary logo in interesting ways. In this example, the way the jaguar sort of moves across the shoulders. Similarly, I was a fan of the mid-90s Patriots jerseys that had the vertical pinstripes and the really large Flying Elvis.

[mkg74]

I don't like the silver numbers. It looks a little USFL-y to me.

At least the USFL made some exciting uniforms. I think it made the NFL a bit jealous!