Gothamite Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 I like the yellow pants (let's not kid ourselves into calling them gold, they are yellow. No, they are Athletic Gold. The color has more red in it.As different from yellow as Columbia Blue is from teal. Similar colors, often used interchangeably in casual conversation, but two distinct colors. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 The helmet stripes, sleeve stripes, and pants stripes do not need to be identical. This pre-occupation with stripe detail clouds people's view of perfectly fine uniform combinations... Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 I like the yellow pants (let's not kid ourselves into calling them gold, they are yellow. No, they are Athletic Gold. The color has more red in it.As different from yellow as Columbia Blue is from teal. Similar colors, often used interchangeably in casual conversation, but two distinct colors.This is one of my pet peeves. Anyone can call a color whatever they want - for example, the Arizona Cardinals have a color that they call Yellow in their logo (the beak). It is exactly the same color that the Packers, Redskins, Vikings, Steelers, Chiefs, and Chargers use and call Gold. And, this color has changed over the years - sometimes it's much more Yellow and sometimes more Orange-y.I can produce many many examples of teams using the same colors and calling them different things.There is no real standard for what constitutes "Columbia Blue" either...it ranges from a light powder Blue, to a light Royal.What's the difference between Cyan, Turquoise, Aqua and Teal? How can you define that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter23 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 The 'Skins shall wear maroon at home under Shanahan, and he made 'em wear the tremendous (albeit inconsistently striped) gold pants.They have never, nor will ever, wear maroon.thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 The 'Skins shall wear maroon at home under Shanahan, and he made 'em wear the tremendous (albeit inconsistently striped) gold pants.They have never, nor will ever, wear maroon.thank you.Between 1937 and 1969, they called their primary color Maroon. It wasn't called "Burgundy" until 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Weren't the 2002 throwbacks maroon? ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 The 'Skins shall wear maroon at home under Shanahan, and he made 'em wear the tremendous (albeit inconsistently striped) gold pants.They have never, nor will ever, wear maroon.thank you.What do you mean? The Redskins are well known as the Maroon and Black, just ask Jim Zorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 The 'Skins shall wear maroon at home under Shanahan, and he made 'em wear the tremendous (albeit inconsistently striped) gold pants.They have never, nor will ever, wear maroon.thank you.Between 1937 and 1969, they called their primary color Maroon. It wasn't called "Burgundy" until 1970.I was going to say... The color was clearly darker and, well, maroony in the days of yore. I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry [The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveR Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 You have striping patterns from parts of three different re-designs:Helmet: George Allen's 1972 design (only facemask color has changed since)Jersey: From the 1979 re-design which removed the gold pants, replaced with white and burgundy pants, and changed jersey/pant/sock striping to the 'double-band' lookPants and socks: From Vince Lombardi's 1969 re-design which changed the colors from the darker burgundy and mustard gold (seen in the 70th anniversary retros) to a deep cherry red and athletic gold, introduced the 'Radio Shack' logo ath. gold helmet and had striping that was deeply rooted in what was used by the Packers.But the ever-shrinking sleeves have reduced the double-band stripes to the width of linguini so it's hardly noticeable. I think the "Northwestern"-esque stripes on the socks are the set that look most out of place. If you put the helmet stripes on the burgundy socks, you could leave the jersey and pants alone and it's OK to the visual "sniff test." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 The helmet stripes, sleeve stripes, and pants stripes do not need to be identical. This pre-occupation with stripe detail clouds people's view of perfectly fine uniform combinations...The key in this instance is that they are deviating from a striping pattern established on the other two regular pants, which have apparently been worn 31 previous seasons. If all of their pants were changed to a triple stripe, I would lament the loss of uniqueness, but I wouldn't complain that the striping pattern didn't match the jerseys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 I like the yellow pants (let's not kid ourselves into calling them gold, they are yellow. No, they are Athletic Gold. The color has more red in it.As different from yellow as Columbia Blue is from teal. Similar colors, often used interchangeably in casual conversation, but two distinct colors.This is one of my pet peeves. Anyone can call a color whatever they want - for example, the Arizona Cardinals have a color that they call Yellow in their logo (the beak). It is exactly the same color that the Packers, Redskins, Vikings, Steelers, Chiefs, and Chargers use and call Gold. And, this color has changed over the years - sometimes it's much more Yellow and sometimes more Orange-y.I can produce many many examples of teams using the same colors and calling them different things.There is no real standard for what constitutes "Columbia Blue" either...it ranges from a light powder Blue, to a light Royal.What's the difference between Cyan, Turquoise, Aqua and Teal? How can you define that?You know, I almost added a "this conversation really bugs colorwerx" caveat, but I can't edit my posts these days. I know that these designations are fairly arbitrary. I think we can agree that teal is a shade of greenish-blue, but after that it gets hazy. How much green needs to be added to light blue before it's teal?While Pantone designations are the only accurate way to describe them, they do lack a certain majesty. "On, you PMS 5535-C and PMS 1235-C, to Glory!" So we need names, and in that light, I think for the purposes of conversation we have to accept the names assigned to the colors by the teams. You have your pet peeve, mine is the know-it-alls who try to argue that Dodger Blue isn't really blue. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 You know, I almost added a "this conversation really bugs colorwerx" caveat, but I can't edit my posts these days. I know that these designations are fairly arbitrary. I think we can agree that teal is a shade of greenish-blue, but after that it gets hazy. How much green needs to be added to light blue before it's teal?While Pantone designations are the only accurate way to describe them, they do lack a certain majesty. "On, you PMS 5535-C and PMS 1235-C, to Glory!" So we need names, and in that light, I think for the purposes of conversation we have to accept the names assigned to the colors by the teams. You have your pet peeve, mine is the know-it-alls who try to argue that Dodger Blue isn't really blue. I hear you.Tell those know-it-alls that Dodger Blue and Cubs Blue is the exact same color, and watch their heads explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 You have your pet peeve, mine is the know-it-alls who try to argue that Dodger Blue isn't really blue. What color do they claim it to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Remember the time someone derailed a topic to talk about how in ancient Rome red was purple (or maybe purple was red, I can't remember)? Â http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Remember the time someone derailed a topic to talk about how in ancient Rome red was purple (or maybe purple was red, I can't remember)? That was BallWonk. Where has he been, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckymack Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Probably to Italy in an attempt to find the answer. Sigs are for sissies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mets33 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 I do like the new pants, or well old ones since they used to wear them, i do wish they would update their logo though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 The helmet stripes, sleeve stripes, and pants stripes do not need to be identical. This pre-occupation with stripe detail clouds people's view of perfectly fine uniform combinations...+1The pant stripes would look washed out if they executed them the same way as the helmets because there's not enough contrast for white to be next to athletic gold.Remember the time someone derailed a topic to talk about how in ancient Rome red was purple (or maybe purple was red, I can't remember)? Purple had a reddish tint that made it closer to what we would now call "red violet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 +1The pant stripes would look washed out if they executed them the same way as the helmets because there's not enough contrast for white to be next to athletic gold.The white woudldn't be washed out if they went with two thick stripes as on the other two sets of pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Personally, I think 100% strict consistency across all elements isn't necessarily the best look for which to strive.This is still my favorite white Packers jersey:The regular stripes don't look good on white, so Lombardi didn't try to force them in. I think the Redskins should adopt the helmet pattern for the burgandy jersey's sleeves and leave the pants alone. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.