Jump to content

NHL 2011-2012: Possible Uniform Changes


uah8tr

Recommended Posts

Here are some photos of the jerseys I own..

This the first jersey:

rctWZ.jpg

This is the second jersey of this style with mesh under arms and non shinny grey area

4M3Rv.jpg

Comparing the two teals, call me crazy but I notice a difference

CxCqw.jpg

0MVZz.jpg

The tag on the collar

BNk6A.jpg

The CCM logo on the back of the jereys

3ufdF.jpg

Funny thing about those jerseys: they never actually wore the jersey with the white piping separating the gray from the teal on the sleeves (or the bottom of the jersey either). That appears to be a prototype jersey (which is also strange, as Nike were the first producers of that particular jersey). So if there is a legitimate discrepancy in the color fabrics, it's probably because one of them was a prototype.

champssig2.png
Follow me on Twitter if you care: @Animal_Clans.

My opinion may or may not be the same as yours. The choice is up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Here are some photos of the jerseys I own..

This the first jersey:

rctWZ.jpg

This is the second jersey of this style with mesh under arms and non shinny grey area

4M3Rv.jpg

Comparing the two teals, call me crazy but I notice a difference

CxCqw.jpg

0MVZz.jpg

The tag on the collar

BNk6A.jpg

The CCM logo on the back of the jereys

3ufdF.jpg

Funny thing about those jerseys: they never actually wore the jersey with the white piping separating the gray from the teal on the sleeves (or the bottom of the jersey either). That appears to be a prototype jersey (which is also strange, as Nike were the first producers of that particular jersey). So if there is a legitimate discrepancy in the color fabrics, it's probably because one of them was a prototype.

Speaking of prototype, the original (Nike) version of that jersey (never hit the ice, so another prototype I guess) had a zipper on the front in lieu of being a lace-up. I saw one on eBay a year or so back, I should have bid on it.

Belts.jpg
PotD May 11th, 2011
looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, but Tampa Bay's new sets are so good, and so much an upgrade from anything they've ever worn, that I can't agree with an "old teams wear classic styles, new teams break new ground" rule.

You think the Mosleybolt is an upgrade?

I don't get the reference, but yes. The new Tampa Bay lightning bolt logo is a huge upgrade over any logo they've ever used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, but Tampa Bay's new sets are so good, and so much an upgrade from anything they've ever worn, that I can't agree with an "old teams wear classic styles, new teams break new ground" rule.

You think the Mosleybolt is an upgrade?

I don't get the reference, but yes. The new Tampa Bay lightning bolt logo is a huge upgrade over any logo they've ever used.

The new Lightning logo looks similar to the emblem of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_and_Circle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I get it now.

It looks like the BU's logo as much as the Flash's logo does. Doesn't bother me there, either. The defining feature of the Lightning's new logo is the oval, which is sufficiently different from the circular fascist logo.

On the other hand, I am reminded of the BU's bolt every time I see one of these buses:

Greyhound_BoltBus_8002.jpg

Creepy.

And yes, the Lightning's new bolt is to my eye a clear upgrade. They've never had a good logo, until now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I get it now.

It looks like the BU's logo as much as the Flash's logo does. Doesn't bother me there, either. The defining feature of the Lightning's new logo is the oval, which is sufficiently different from the circular fascist logo.

On the other hand, I am reminded of the BU's bolt every time I see one of these buses:

Greyhound_BoltBus_8002.jpg

Creepy.

And yes, the Lightning's new bolt is to my eye a clear upgrade. They've never had a good logo, until now.

That's one creepy bus.

Anyway, yeah, I agree the similarities between the new Lightning logo and the BUF badge are coincidental and nothing to lose sleep over. Interestingly enough, it's the thing that makes the Lighting logo the most different from the BUF emblem that I dislike the most. The skewed oval doesn't look right to me and ruins the "iconic" look they were going for. A standard circle would, in my opinion, be an improvement.

u9j9gjgn2t7ir1w783olorjrl-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the decision with this logo to connect the oval on the left of the bolt, and leave a space on the right. It looks unfinished.

I kind of get it. It's using white as it's shadow color to (try to) give it some depth. It only works at the top and bottom and, even then, not that well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's the intention but it doesn't really work for me. It desperately needs a 3rd colour to really make that 'shadow' effect bring the logo to life.

I'm Danny fkn Heatley, I play for myself. That's what fkn all stars do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, but Tampa Bay's new sets are so good, and so much an upgrade from anything they've ever worn, that I can't agree with an "old teams wear classic styles, new teams break new ground" rule.

There is absolutely no way the current jerseys are an upgrade from their originals. I will agree the original logo left much to be desired but these new jerseys are even lazier. All they did was take the Detroit Template and add the Maple Leaf's colour scheme. They removed all the character from their identity. Update the logo but keep the basic look they won a cup with...

Those jerseys were my least favorite in the league when they had them. The logo was horrible and the uniforms were really bland. The new uniforms are such a huge upgrade over anything they've worn in terms of the logo and uniform design.

The logo had the potential to be a huge upgrade if they added a black shadow to the bolt and a silver inner circle. What I don't understand though is how you can say Tampa's original uniforms were bland and forgive the uninspired red wings-knockpoff striping of the currents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, but Tampa Bay's new sets are so good, and so much an upgrade from anything they've ever worn, that I can't agree with an "old teams wear classic styles, new teams break new ground" rule.

There is absolutely no way the current jerseys are an upgrade from their originals. I will agree the original logo left much to be desired but these new jerseys are even lazier. All they did was take the Detroit Template and add the Maple Leaf's colour scheme. They removed all the character from their identity. Update the logo but keep the basic look they won a cup with...

Those jerseys were my least favorite in the league when they had them. The logo was horrible and the uniforms were really bland. The new uniforms are such a huge upgrade over anything they've worn in terms of the logo and uniform design.

The logo had the potential to be a huge upgrade if they added a black shadow to the bolt and a silver inner circle. What I don't understand though is how you can say Tampa's original uniforms were bland and forgive the uninspired red wings-knockpoff striping of the currents.

I think it's just because of how the colors were used. Black from head to toe doesn't always look bland, but they needed to do something different with how they used their colors. And the white shoulder yoke does absolutely nothing for me in that uniform.

The current uniforms might not be the most exciting things ever but the shade of blue they use with white looks very good. I'll admit they look like the Red Wings at home, but the roads aren't the same. They still don't have their balance of colors down perfectly, but what they have now is a whole lot better than the original jerseys. I think the best they've ever looked, strictly on color combinations, was last year's blue alts. If they went with black helmets and pants with the current uniforms and added some small black striping to the jerseys it would be perfect.

Wordmark_zpsaxgeaoqy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too prefer the triangle for the Sharks. The full-body just looks akward without it. I know, silly reasoning, but I just can't look at the full-body without thinking "gahh! It needs the triangle!"

Also regarding the Sharks, it's time to brighten the teal and ditch the orange on the uniforms. The teal and black look much better with silver than they do with that orange, in my humble opinion.

Agreed. The orange was a weird addition to a uniform set that didn't really need any modification. Their logo change and orange addition were both mistakes IMO that ruined one of the best logo/uniform combos in the NHL. Hopefully their next change will at the very least rectify the orange issue and dump it completely. As for dropping the triangle... why? The triangle is the basis for the name Sharks in the first place. Dropping it and it's allusion to the red triangle would diminish the whole Sharks image even more than bending it already did.

I just hope they revisit this uniform in the future. It was the best one they've ever worn.

on3t7.jpg

And at the very least, at least the old uniforms and logo are living on in the minor leagues at Worcester. The current NHL logo is positively cartoonish by comparison.

200px-Worcester_Sharks.svg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably in the minority, but I thought the updated logo and uniform set, coupled with the addition of pacific gold was a tremendous upgrade in terms of the Sharks. Yes, the teal and silver era was nice too, but since they debuted back in the early 1990's, I found their strongest set to be their original one, while the pre-Edge set was their weakest (but still decent) one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the old Sharks logo is better then the new Sharks logo. The new colours aren't an approvement, but the logo itself makes the previous version look downright amatrue.

Agreed. I never realized how bad it was until seeing it juxtaposed to the new logo. The stick on the new logo could be a bit better, but the new logo as a whole is still better.

Belts.jpg
PotD May 11th, 2011
looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the old Sharks logo is better then the new Sharks logo. The new colours aren't an approvement, but the logo itself makes the previous version look downright amatrue.

Several reasons. First the shark actually looks like a real shark rather than a goofy cartoon shark with orange eyes and oversized teeth. Second the stick looks like an old traditional hockey stick rather than an overly dramatized and "swoopy" orange cartoon stick. Third the triangle is an actual equilateral triangle rather than an embellished shape that isn't actually a triangle. To my eye the current logo is very unprofessional compared to the old one. It's the kind of logo I'd expect a minor league team to have, not an NHL side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the old Sharks logo is better then the new Sharks logo. The new colours aren't an approvement, but the logo itself makes the previous version look downright amatrue.

Several reasons. First the shark actually looks like a real shark rather than a goofy cartoon shark with orange eyes and oversized teeth. Second the stick looks like an old traditional hockey stick rather than an overly dramatized and "swoopy" orange cartoon stick. Third the triangle is an actual equilateral triangle rather than an embellished shape that isn't actually a triangle. To my eye the current logo is very unprofessional compared to the old one. It's the kind of logo I'd expect a minor league team to have, not an NHL side.

So you don't like curved lines or artistic license.

Welcome to DrunjFlix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the old Sharks logo is better then the new Sharks logo. The new colours aren't an approvement, but the logo itself makes the previous version look downright amatrue.

Several reasons. First the shark actually looks like a real shark rather than a goofy cartoon shark with orange eyes and oversized teeth. Second the stick looks like an old traditional hockey stick rather than an overly dramatized and "swoopy" orange cartoon stick. Third the triangle is an actual equilateral triangle rather than an embellished shape that isn't actually a triangle. To my eye the current logo is very unprofessional compared to the old one. It's the kind of logo I'd expect a minor league team to have, not an NHL side.

So you don't like curved lines or artistic license.

Not really no. I prefer realism to false agrandization. Great white sharks are intimidating enough creatures without anyone adding artistic flourish to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.