Various looks of the "blue" 1966 uniform.... | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Various looks of the "blue" 1966 uniform....

THE OG CANEPHINS

THE OG CANEPHINS

formally known as CANEPHINS
Joined
Sep 3, 2001
Messages
1,889
Reaction score
346
Age
52
Location
Savannah, GA
Fair to say these aren't aqua. Will be interesting to see how close Nike comes to pulling this off. One thing of note is the inconsistencies in sleeve numbers with the backings.

Also, whatever we choose (don't think it will be white) is our alternative jersey for the next 5 seasons.
130709134548-cover-31-single-image-cut.jpg


110927_Boca.jpg


120615_Powell.jpg
 
Last picture is early 70's. No stripes, and already using mesh with air holes. Yes, I know i'm a dork.
 
That SI cover looks colorized from a black and white photo, so it's doubtful that is the actual color.

The thing with aqua is that it can look vastly different in different lighting conditions and with different camera equipment.

Just check out some of these. The same uniform looks a lot different given lighting conditions, etc.

9cf62e45eb216f60b4d681924d4fcc05.jpg
 
Why didn't they make the current uniforms this shade of blue. It's so much better than the current-soft-Houston Oiler-baby blue.
 
Yeah, shadows/sweat definitely change the look of the color. Those were certainly more blue-ish, but not full-on blue.
 
It's not blue. It's the quality of the photograph. Today's HD people don't realize it. Go watch a game on VHS. Quality sucks right? Colors not as bright right?
 
The top one looks very Buffalo Billsish, let's hope they work that out.
 
SkapePhin said:
That SI cover looks colorized from a black and white photo, so it's doubtful that is the actual color.

The thing with aqua is that it can look vastly different in different lighting conditions and with different camera equipment.

Just check out some of these. The same uniform looks a lot different given lighting conditions, etc.

9cf62e45eb216f60b4d681924d4fcc05.jpg
Click to expand...



I love the white facemask. homerun there IMO.

PS.... Czonka...dan...ricky...EGNEW! hah :crazy:
 
The uni of the AFL days was a tackle twill fabric, with sewn on numbers. The nylon mesh did not appear until 1970. The Dolphins played games at night heavily in the AFL days so the heat did not factor in. As the mesh jerseys came in in 1970, the heat-rubberized imprint process had NOT yet been perfected (as I am told) so they sewed the #s on and left the jersey sleeveless.

In 1972 (what makes that year stand out LOL) they got the heat-transfer thing right & began having SOME of the white jerseys adopt stripes and began using them for daytime home games almost all the time. Look at pics from 17-0 and you will see different players, some with stripes, some not, and I believe there were time when sleeve and no-sleeve stripes were used by the same guy in different halves. In white. The aqua continued to use no-sleeves until 1973 when the standard, classic look of our glory days had the 5-stripe pattern on sleeves and imprinted #s... until the 1987 change when we moved out of the OB.

The aqua was the same color from 1966 until 1987. Period. There was no bluer or greener aqua during that time. They look different because of lighting conditions. In general, sunlight made them lighter and bluer and night games made the look greener... esp. in the OB's poor lighting which made photos look like we were almost in kelly green. I was at a MNF game against the Jets in '74 and I saw the aqua of the day close up in real life with my 2 eyes. It was true aqua, right smack-dab between blue and green, rich in shade and saturation and gorgeous at night. Pics don't do it justice.

The present stuff is less saturated and almost has a pastel-creme look. Increased saturation would make them OK. They may be a smidgen too blue.

I suspect we will for sure have the throwbacks be normal nylon aqua mesh, and the style decision may be between stripes and no-stripe. The sleeve cuts today really favor the no-stripes version... a LOT (hint, hint)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SkapePhin said:
9cf62e45eb216f60b4d681924d4fcc05.jpg
Click to expand...

The 3rd image of Csonka in the upper row, and the 1st one of the 2nd row (SB8 Minn.) are the closest on this compilation to the real-life aqua they wore. You can tell that lighting and photo quality usually make the aqua look washed-out in other pics.
 
iwastherein1972 said:
The 3rd image of Csonka in the upper row, and the 1st one of the 2nd row (SB8 Minn.) are the closest on this compilation to the real-life aqua they wore. You can tell that lighting and photo quality usually make the aqua look washed-out in other pics.
Click to expand...

Correct. Those two pictures depict it best. There was no variance and no talk of variance.

As I've mentioned many times, I never fully trust history books or conventional wisdom because so many errors are made in backfitting. Not everything transfers if you didn't experience it in real time. In this case people are simply trying too hard, wanting to believe subtle changes were made year to year or decade to decade, when it's merely lighting variance and picture quality, as you emphasized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom