Nationals to unveil "major changes" to their uniforms on Nov. 10.

[NDwas]

Let me just say that you're all wrong. See you next week!

[IceCap]

As long as they're committing to the script look and removing any and all uniform inconsistencies I'll be happy. The original set had two great, but incompatible looks. I'm just happy they've finally chosen one.

[NYYNYR]

You'd think in a city that's Redskins-crazy, this would do tremendously well. Not only that, it would be wholly different than anything we have currently in the majors...

That's a Tampa Bay Rays throwback.

HELLO ICE CAP AND SOD BOY:

Yes, I know it's a Tampa throwback. I'm saying the color scheme of said Pelicans jersey would be IDEAL in a city that bleeds maroon burgundy and yellow, no?

I'm not getting the instinct by some of you guys to either put down a poster or to be confrontational or (in this case) holier-than-thou. Don't get it. Never will. I'm not an idiot. Please stop inferring otherwise.

Get it right son. Washingtonians get mad about that sort of thing

Hahahah. Believe me. I know. I used to live at American University and interned at a TV station near it (northwest DC, i suppose...) I corrected people all the time. There is a clear difference between maroon and burgundy. No one gets it right. Maroon is a red with brown elements (think chestnut almost). Burgundy has tinges of purple, almost cordovan. That I believe is the difference. The Colorado Avalanche are listed as Burgundy. That is correct. The Red Skins are not. At least how it appears on TV.

Maroon

Burgundy

The Red Skins don't have tinges of purple. They have tinges of reddish-brown / darker-than-normal red.

Or am I totally wrong? Let's start a new thread ! : )

[NYYNYR]

You'd think in a city that's Redskins-crazy, this would do tremendously well. Not only that, it would be wholly different than anything we have currently in the majors...

That's a Tampa Bay Rays throwback.

HELLO ICE CAP AND SOD BOY:

Yes, I know it's a Tampa throwback. I'm saying the color scheme of said Pelicans jersey would be IDEAL in a city that bleeds maroon burgundy and yellow, no?

I'm not getting the instinct by some of you guys to either put down a poster or to be confrontational or (in this case) holier-than-thou. Don't get it. Never will. I'm not an idiot. Please stop inferring otherwise.

Get it right son. Washingtonians get mad about that sort of thing

Hahahah. Believe me. I know. I used to live at American University and interned at a TV station near it (northwest DC, i suppose...) I corrected people all the time. There is a clear difference between maroon and burgundy. No one gets it right. Maroon is a red with brown elements (think chestnut almost). Burgundy has tinges of purple, almost cordovan. That I believe is the difference. The Colorado Avalanche are listed as Burgundy. That is correct. The Red Skins are not. At least how it appears on TV.

Maroon

Burgundy

The Red Skins don't have tinges of purple. They have tinges of reddish-brown / darker-than-normal red.

Or am I totally wrong? Let's start a new thread ! : )

I checked their wiki pages, and both the Redskins and Avs list themselves as burgundy. How can these be the same color?

[BaltimoreFan]

Will we at least see the "Pitching Senator" as a sleeve patch?

That would be awesome, but the Twins probably still own that logo. So unfortunately I don't think we'll ever see it return.

[TruColor]

Hahahah. Believe me. I know. I used to live at American University and interned at a TV station near it (northwest DC, i suppose...) I corrected people all the time. There is a clear difference between maroon and burgundy. No one gets it right. Maroon is a red with brown elements (think chestnut almost). Burgundy has tinges of purple, almost cordovan. That I believe is the difference. The Colorado Avalanche are listed as Burgundy. That is correct. The Red Skins are not. At least how it appears on TV.

Maroon

Burgundy

The Red Skins don't have tinges of purple. They have tinges of reddish-brown / darker-than-normal red.

Or am I totally wrong? Let's start a new thread ! : )

*sigh*

OK...here's the Redskins' current shade of Burgundy:

...and its fabric/textile equivalent:

Here's the current Colorado Avalanche Burgundy:

I don't have the fabric/textile colors for NHL teams.

As a comparison, here is the lighter Burgundy that is used in the Redskins' throwbacks (which is also used in the infamous Gold pants):

...and its fabric/textile match:

And as a bonus, here is the original Avalanche Burgundy, which was changed between the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 seasons:

Bottom line is, teams can call a color whatever they want. Burgundy, Maroon, Red, Wine...it really doesn't matter.

[andrewharrington]

I had always heard that burgundy was basically dark red, while maroon was an even darker, more-purplish shade of red, which is the opposite of what's posted here. It seems my definition is contrary to what the general consensus is. But, in that case, the Redskins' current uniforms would be best described as 'maroon' while their spear throwbacks would be best described as 'burgundy.' I often hear it described the opposite way, though, which is why I picked up my definitions: burgundy being basically 'brick red' and maroon being darker and purple-toned.

[vicfurth]

I had always heard that burgundy was basically dark red, while maroon was an even darker, more-purplish shade of red, which is the opposite of what's posted here. It seems my definition is contrary to what the general consensus is. But, in that case, the Redskins' current uniforms would be best described as 'maroon' while their spear throwbacks would be best described as 'burgundy.' I often hear it described the opposite way, though, which is why I picked up my definitions: burgundy being basically 'brick red' and maroon being darker and purple-toned.

Maroon (think Texas A&M) is a few shades darker than burgundy.

[Gothamite]

I had always heard that burgundy was basically dark red, while maroon was an even darker, more-purplish shade of red, which is the opposite of what's posted here. It seems my definition is contrary to what the general consensus is. But, in that case, the Redskins' current uniforms would be best described as 'maroon' while their spear throwbacks would be best described as 'burgundy.' I often hear it described the opposite way, though, which is why I picked up my definitions: burgundy being basically 'brick red' and maroon being darker and purple-toned.

Maroon (think Texas A&M) is a few shades darker than burgundy.

Or "Maroon", "Burgandy", "Claret", "Garnet", "Wine" and "Crimson" are arbitrary and essentially interchangeable terms for any number of shades of dark red, depending on who's talking. That's why Colorwerx gets so annoyed when we have these conversations.

Or maybe I'm just bitter that Wisconsin still seems to think this red is "Cardinal":

[TruColor]

OK...here's what I've been saying for years now...you really can't just define color descriptions in this manner. One person's Burgundy is another person's Maroon is another person's Dark Red. Take this color for example:

In my database this color is described as follows:

• Brick
• Brick Red
• Burgundy
• Cardinal
• Cardinal Red
• Chocolate Brown
• Cranberry
• Crimson
• Dark Maroon
• Dark Red
• Deep Red
• Ferrari Red
• Garnet
• Georgia Bronze
• Maroon
• Red
• Wine

Yes, Texas A&M's Maroon is a completely different color. However, UMass's Maroon is also different than either one of these.

Bottom line is that you can call a color anything you want. Trying to pigeon-hole colors into descriptive buckets really doesn't work in these days of established color standards.

EDIT: Gothamite stated pretty much what I was trying to say as I was putting this thesis (!) together.

[NYYNYR]

I apologize for being a pest and "bothering" people, but I'm sorry. You guys are simply wrong on this manner.

Yes, it's true that to many people, dark red = maroon = burgundy, and maybe that confusion has led to what we see in terms of labeling and names by Pantone.

Maroon = dark red with tinges of brown.

Maroon is derived from French marron ("chestnut").

Burgundy = a shade of purplish red associated with the Burgundy wine of the same name, which in turn is named after the Burgundy region of France

There is a clear distinction. I think people are in general LAZY when it comes to ID'ing things correctly (especially guys), and it leads to the confusion we have today.

I see what you're saying, but maroon is NOT burgundy. Clear difference in the names and what they mean and how they were derived. Sorry to be a pest.

[NYYNYR]

To follow up, the Thrashers' third jersey is maroon. The Coyotes are brick red, and the Avs are burgundy. They're not the same thing.

Maroon

Brick

Burgundy

[CubsFanBudMan]

Georgia Bronze?

[TruColor]

I apologize for being a pest and "bothering" people, but I'm sorry. You guys are simply wrong on this manner.

Yes, it's true that to many people, dark red = maroon = burgundy, and maybe that confusion has led to what we see in terms of labeling and names by Pantone.

Maroon = dark red with tinges of brown.

Maroon is derived from French marron ("chestnut").

Burgundy = a shade of purplish red associated with the Burgundy wine of the same name, which in turn is named after the Burgundy region of France

There is a clear distinction. I think people are in general LAZY when it comes to ID'ing things correctly (especially guys), and it leads to the confusion we have today.

I see what you're saying, but maroon is NOT burgundy. Clear difference in the names and what they mean and how they were derived. Sorry to be a pest.

You're not getting it. Teams can call colors whatever they want. Pantone standards dictate the actual shade, and then the teams and leagues assign whatever description they want to it. The example I posted regarding PANTONE 202 C is a perfect example...that color is used by countless teams, and is called a number of variations.

And for the record, the Red used by the Thrashers and the Coyotes is EXACTLY THE SAME COLOR. And, the Burgundy that the Avs use matches the Cavaliers' newest shade of Wine.

You really can't dispute this.

[oddball]

WOW! Someone actually had the balls to argue with Pantone and call him wrong? As a graphic designer, I'm going to agree with Pantone and say that, what matters are the numbers (aka the PMS 202, CMYK, RGB) because when you have two people, the same color will be two different colors. Heck when you have 10 people, the same color will be 10 different colors. And really, to use color is such a vague term when you should be talking about Hue/Saturation, or Tint (addition of black to a color)/Shade(addition of white to a color)of colors. I'll also point out that if maroon is adding brown actually is false, you're adding black to the color as you are tinting it.

[droozer]

All this being said, the new Nationals uniforms are bound to be nice. Off topic man strikes again!

[BawlmerOreos]

All this being said, the new Nationals uniforms are bound to be nice. Off topic man strikes again!

Actually...don't hold your breath.

[McCall]

All this being said, the new Nationals uniforms are bound to be nice. Off topic man strikes again!

Actually, you're ON topic here.

[droozer]

All this being said, the new Nationals uniforms are bound to be nice. Off topic man strikes again!

Actually, you're ON topic here.

Well, ya but the color shibang I started wasn't.

[BadSeed84]

So how bout that national uniforms that'll be unveiled a week from today!