New Vikings Uniforms

[Lights Out]

I'm also a big fan of purple/volt/gray together.

I like that color scheme too, just not for the Vikings.

[Gr3g3]

Why is nobody else reading into the number font they used? Has to be something...right? Right?

was just going to post the same thing

Boy, I hope not. I've never seen italicized numbers on a jersey really work.

ask the steelers about that

Italicized numbers look terrible on the Steelers. So out of place. Bold block numbers is what they need.

[BlueSky]

So the Vikes sent their equipment guy to get the purple jerseys. They changed on the sideline (has to be the only time in NFL history) and went with the grape Tootsie Pop look for the rest of the game.

What kills me is that the Vikings were so embarrassed by the Grape Invaders look that day, but 40 years later they chose to do the same thing on purpose.

Yep. Supposedly overreacting to that purple nightmare was the reason they dumped the purple road pants.

[BrandMooreArt]

doing some viking research on my own one thing that really jumps out at me is the stripes that were used on ship's sails. i think theres so much potential there when mixed with the team's own traditional stripes. i hope we see some integration of that in the new uniforms. i did an alternate logo based on the same idea (it's an "M").

[andrewharrington]

Completely subjective statement. Again, you're missing the point; update the logo, update the uniform...update the wordmark. I understand that it was the original team wordmark for over 20 years, but the uniforms the team has worn since '06 is now also directly connected to it.

I just think if you're "rebranding", then do it all, but I understand the historic significance of the wordmark, even if I personally don't think it's that great.

I think you have to see the whole identity (or at least know the direction they plan on going) before you can formulate an educated opinion on that. Sure, they updated the logo, but it's still a very classic illustration. They already tried pairing ultra-weird uniforms with their classic logo and wordmark, and it was terrible. Why do the same thing again by updating the wordmark to something that (potentially) doesn't fit the rest of the identity?

doing some viking research on my own one thing that really jumps out at me is the stripes that were used on ship's sails. i think theres so much potential there when mixed with the team's own traditional stripes. i hope we see some integration of that in the new uniforms. i did an alternate logo based on the same idea (it's an "M").

I'm not sure the M is apparent unless you know what it is, but it's an interesting concept, and I'd love to see those stripes on the uniform.

[PALEFACE]

So wait.....the team "progressed" the logo, is unveiling "new" uniforms, but decided their dated wordmark didn't need an upgrade?

That's about as sad as having purple & yellow as your primary team colors.

Their wordmark needed no updating. It's a classic. You gonna ask the Giants or Packrs to do the same?

No, because the Packers aren't changing their logo or uniforms and the Giants predominately use the "ny" logo, which they started using...when they last change their logo & uniforms. You missed the point.

I don't mind that wordmark. Mainly because I grew up with this horrible thing.

And that is atrocious. Still, my point is that it's like painting your house a new color, putting on a new roof, putting in new windows, and then leaving the cruddy looking front porch with broken floorboards and chipping paint untouched.

Except in this case the porch still looks pretty great after all these years, and will most likely perfectly fit in with all of the changes being made.

I mean go ahead and not like the script, but at least understand why it's sticking around...

Completely subjective statement. Again, you're missing the point; update the logo, update the uniform...update the wordmark. I understand that it was the original team wordmark for over 20 years, but the uniforms the team has worn since '06 is now also directly connected to it.

I just think if you're "rebranding", then do it all, but I understand the historic significance of the wordmark, even if I personally don't think it's that great.

I'm first going to say, the above word mark always bothered me from a design perspective. The typeface is called Braggadocio, which was made in the 30s and is an art decco typeface. Without sound like a snob and a know-it-all (too late, I know) this is a design fail because there is nothing art deco about vikings in general (wrong era) and nothing art deco about The Vikings, their identity, the year they were formed or even football for that matter.

You're right, if you personally dont like the current word mark, that is up to you as everyone has their own taste, you cant change someone's mind about that. But I believe that the current mark is right for the current brand and doesnt need to be updated just for the sake of rebranding. Their goal is go stay more true to the heratige of the team, which originally used this mark, or a form of it. The letter forms have changed ever so slightly since the introduction of the original mark, but not by much. I also think it's a fun/interesting interpretation of a "viking-esque" typeface without using the actual hand-writing style of that time period (before the printing press and typefaces). So just because they are rebranding, I dont think everything has to change just for the sake of change.

That's my two cents. Just an opinion, not an argument.

[PALEFACE]

I know we have discussed a lot of different aspects on here, but there is one I dont think we have touched. Socks. I know most of the years we have worn plain purple socks, but in the begining we had purple socks with three yellow stripes which I thought was pretty nice and would totally like to see that come back. Here are a couple of shots with those socks, as well as one shot of CC wearing them with the 75th unis, which may have only been for one game, because photographic proof is hard to find. There are only of a couple shots of him with these socks on and this card was the only one i could find at the moment (i know i have seen at least one other images).

[Midway]

It's funny to me that some people still find purple to be "unmanly" in this day and age. That is, unless you're a 6 year old boy who still thinks girls have cooties. And I don't mean that in a negative way, it's really how I think some people overreact about the color.

Purple is royalty, and it is unique in a sports world overrun with same-same color combos galore. No one seems to mind that the Lakers have been rocking purple for decades so why shouldn't the Vikings be allowed to capitalize on something great of their own?

[andycumbee19]

It's funny to me that some people still find purple to be "unmanly" in this day and age. That is, unless you're a 6 year old boy who still thinks girls have cooties. And I don't mean that in a negative way, it's really how I think some people overreact about the color.

Purple is royalty, and it is unique in a sports world overrun with same-same color combos galore. No one seems to mind that the Lakers have been rocking purple for decades so why shouldn't the Vikings be allowed to capitalize on something great of their own?

Exactly. One of the MANY reasons I quit reading Uni-Watch is his inability to accept purple as a sports color.

Also, all baseball uniforms in this day and age should be made of wool or flannel. Stroke anyone?

[oldschoolvikings]

I know we have discussed a lot of different aspects on here, but there is one I dont think we have touched. Socks. I know most of the years we have worn plain purple socks, but in the begining we had purple socks with three yellow stripes which I thought was pretty nice and would totally like to see that come back. Here are a couple of shots with those socks, as well as one shot of CC wearing them with the 75th unis, which may have only been for one game, because photographic proof is hard to find. There are only of a couple shots of him with these socks on and this card was the only one i could find at the moment (i know i have seen at least one other images).

You know, I love striped socks on a football uniform... its something I'd really like to see make a comeback, especially now that the sleeve is so useless for stripes. But, those particular stripes always seemed so odd to me.

The Vikings had a very distinctive sleeve stripe, and those sock stripes just didn't work with it at all. It was almost like they were picked out from a catalog by someone without any knowledge of the rest of the design. "The team's gonna wear purple and gold? Here... order these socks." Sock stripes are a great look when the match the sleeve (Chicago, Kansas City) but weird when they don't (Redskins).

[Silver_Star]

doing some viking research on my own one thing that really jumps out at me is the stripes that were used on ship's sails. i think theres so much potential there when mixed with the team's own traditional stripes. i hope we see some integration of that in the new uniforms. i did an alternate logo based on the same idea (it's an "M").

Why are they afraid to darken the purple back to what it was before? Are they :censored:ing delusional and dumb ass s.................... Nevermind, it.

[shaydre1019]

doing some viking research on my own one thing that really jumps out at me is the stripes that were used on ship's sails. i think theres so much potential there when mixed with the team's own traditional stripes. i hope we see some integration of that in the new uniforms. i did an alternate logo based on the same idea (it's an "M").

Why are they afraid to darken the purple back to what it was before? Are they :censored:ing delusional and dumb ass s.................... Nevermind, it.

Can you elaborate?

[Cellar Dweller]

doing some viking research on my own one thing that really jumps out at me is the stripes that were used on ship's sails. i think theres so much potential there when mixed with the team's own traditional stripes. i hope we see some integration of that in the new uniforms. i did an alternate logo based on the same idea (it's an "M").

Why are they afraid to darken the purple back to what it was before? Are they :censored:ing delusional and dumb ass s.................... Nevermind, it.

I've often wondered the same thing. Seems like a no-brainer. After seeing countless purple "fails" over the years, I was beginning to think that no one was noticing.

This is the purple I've been longing for:

[DeFrank]

Didn't we just settle the purple debate like a few minutes ago?

[BrandMooreArt]

It's funny to me that some people still find purple to be "unmanly" in this day and age. That is, unless you're a 6 year old boy who still thinks girls have cooties. And I don't mean that in a negative way, it's really how I think some people overreact about the color.

Purple is royalty, and it is unique in a sports world overrun with same-same color combos galore. No one seems to mind that the Lakers have been rocking purple for decades so why shouldn't the Vikings be allowed to capitalize on something great of their own?

color is subjective, but a very strong communicator. it even affects us physically. specific connotations might vary from person to person but there are some strong ones in every culture. purple is not the color of royalty in 2013 North America. its more of a representation of creativity, femininity, and fruit (eggplant, raisins, grapes) then anything else. the Lakers wear purple as a secondary color and the NBA brand is totally different than the NFL where they brand themselves as an epic game of of legendary warriors spanning back many decades, a modern gladiator battle (explosions! football!). i dont think the Vikings need to downplay their use of purple, but its definitely not black and red. it dosent scream "manliness and testosterone".

[DeFrank]

It's funny to me that some people still find purple to be "unmanly" in this day and age. That is, unless you're a 6 year old boy who still thinks girls have cooties. And I don't mean that in a negative way, it's really how I think some people overreact about the color.

Purple is royalty, and it is unique in a sports world overrun with same-same color combos galore. No one seems to mind that the Lakers have been rocking purple for decades so why shouldn't the Vikings be allowed to capitalize on something great of their own?

color is subjective, but a very strong communicator. it even affects us physically. specific connotations might vary from person to person but there are some strong ones in every culture. purple is not the color of royalty in 2013 North America. its more of a representation of creativity, femininity, and fruit (eggplant, raisins, grapes) then anything else. the Lakers wear purple as a secondary color and the NBA brand is totally different than the NFL where they brand themselves as an epic game of of legendary warriors spanning back many decades, a modern gladiator battle (explosions! football!). i dont think the Vikings need to downplay their use of purple, but its definitely not black and red. it dosent scream "manliness and testosterone".

[TruColor]

OK...hopefully I can clear up some of the dialog regarding the Vikings' Purple.

Again, for those who haven't picked up what I've been saying for years now, the NFL used custom color ink mixes for matching prior to 1980 or so. Pretty much everything prior to 1980 is going to be an estimate - no Pantone equivalents were specified. So based on my 1977 NFL Style Guide set, I have been able to match these custom colors fairly closely to Pantone standards.

The early color estimates plus my extensive research (Style Guides and official digital files ranging from 1977 through the present) have produced the following color changes for the Vikings' Purple:

Keep in mind that these shades represent the spot colors - used for printing, but also provide the base color for matching to other substrates, including textiles, twill, threads, etc.

For textile color matches, the NFL didn't begin specifying Pantone Textile colors until 1997. However, Reebok began using a custom fabric/textile color in 2007, and Nike started using one in 2012. For some inexplicable reason, the custom Reebok color is still listed in official files. What is also misleading as to the actual colors used, is that the Reebok and Nike color codes are created using CMYK. Which is asinine in my mind. Converting CMYK to RGB (which what is done here for these custom colors) produces an inferior color representation. The best way to measure a color's properties is to use a color spectrometer and determine the CIE-L*ab numbers. Then, convert those coordinates to sRGB. (But I digress - ya think?).

OK - so the first two Textile swatches here represent accurate representations of the Pantone Textile colors used by the Vikings from 1997 through 2006, and the last two represent CMYK conversions of custom manufacturer colors. Take them with a grain of salt.

[Pizzaman7294]

BAM! we werent just seeing things. Thank you.

[nicktharipper]

It's likely due to the fact my first flashbulb memories of Vikings fandom came about at the same time, but my favorite is the 97-01 purple.

[nuordr]

Thanks Colorwerx!