Jump to content

Teams using "cooler" colors in descriptions instead of actual colors


sportsfan9580

Recommended Posts

Just a thought, a lot of fans of (particularly yellow-themed) teams describe their colors as gold, maize, etc. Are there any other teams that do that and do you agree that this is unnecessary?

Some Examples

Steelers (Real color: yellow; Described color: gold)

Lakers " "

Sabres (Real color: yellow?; Described color: maize) (I know, this was during the "Buffaslug" era)

Raiders (Real color: gray; Described color: silver)

Spurs " "

White Sox " "

Texans (Real color: red; Described color: battle red, need confirmation, and if there is a difference?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The Lakers' shade of purple is called "forum blue"

Then you also have the Disney-era Ducks with "jade and eggplant," and the Disney-era Angels with "periwinkle"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAMS, 49ERS, SAINTS = GOLD

PACKERS, STEELERS, = YELLOW

LAKERS, PURPLE & YELLOW ..... but when Jack Kent Cooke owned the KINGS and LAKERS he wouldn't let the announcers call it 'PURPLE', it had to be called 'FORUM BLUE' :therock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lakers' shade of purple is called "forum blue"

Not since 1981. It's been Royal Purple since then.

We've discussed these kinds of things at length on this board, and even fairly recently.

Later on, I'll address this issue...for example, not only is the Raiders primary color not Gray, it's not even a true Silver...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athletic gold (Steelers, Packers, Lakers) is not yellow any more than teal is green.

Related? Very much. But the same? No.

Exactly.

For some reason, any color within the yellow spectrum seems to just be labeled "yellow", while other colors have multiple excepted shades. Athletic gold, maize, amber, and saffron are just as different from each other as scarlet, cardinal, crimson, and garnet are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athletic gold (Steelers, Packers, Lakers) is not yellow any more than teal is green.

Related? Very much. But the same? No.

Exactly.

For some reason, any color within the yellow spectrum seems to just be labeled "yellow", while other colors have multiple excepted shades. Athletic gold, maize, amber, and saffron are just as different from each other as scarlet, cardinal, crimson, and garnet are.

It's because using gold as part of the name is disingenuous. It may not be yellow, but it is very close to yellow. It doesn't at all look like gold-gold. If they called it anything other than gold I wouldn't call it yellow. As you said, other colors have multiple accepted shades, but they are still referred to frequently as their, for lack of better term, parent color. For example, the NY Giants wear royal blue and the Chicago Bears wear navy. However, both teams are said to wear blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because their colors are "navy blue" and "royal blue". "Blue" is an accurate shorthand.

The Packers, Steelers et al use "athletic gold". "Gold" is the shorthand.

It's because using gold as part of the name is disingenuous.

:blink:

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because their colors are "navy blue" and "royal blue". "Blue" is an accurate shorthand.

The Packers, Steelers et al use "athletic gold". "Gold" is the shorthand.

It's because using gold as part of the name is disingenuous.

:blink:

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; insincere. It was used as intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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