2018 Jerseys/Logos/Sponsorships

[Foreign Legion]

FFS horns are dope. Leave em

This man for PM

 

[The Great Dane]

I don’t understand what you would achieve anyway from getting rid of the horns? I mean they’re a marketing tool and kids like them? What does “historical accuracy” achieve? Were there any Vikings who lived in Belconnen? Or Tuggeronong? Or Gunghalin?

St.George supposedly slayed a Dragon. Would it do Saints any favours to have a bloke on a horse put a sword through Happy Dragon as he leads the team out, in the interests of historical accuracy?!

My argument was never for historical accuracy, you'd know that if you actually read what I wrote...

Oh and see the beanie above, yeah those were given out for free at games one year and for a gold coin donation the next year (the one above is from the second year cause it's green instead of grey), they were produced by DHA not the Raiders, were not sold for profit, and basically amount to a advertising campaign for DHA... In other words they didn't make either the Raiders or the NRL a cent...

BTW initially St. Gorge were called the Dragon slayers, and who knows maybe if the commentators didn't short hand it to just the Dragons maybe you'd have a cool brand based around that instead of around dragons.

 

[The Great Dane]

This is just my opinion and I'm not trying to detract from yours.

Its not the club's job to teach an identity, its job is to communicate an identity effectively and immediately. You could apply sweeping changes to make cultural relics accurate within an identity but they often are left as is for the sake of continuity and often in cases because its more marketable.

1. We have no evidence that horns are more marketable, in fact we have a good chunk of evidence that it makes no difference whats so ever (as provided before).

2. My argument (to be honest it wasn't really any argument) was never one for historical accuracy, stop straw-manning it.

Put simply one of these images has the image I'd be looking for in pursuit of a "scarier" more aggressive look that takes it's self more seriously than the other-

Not the best example but the recent Jurassic Park movies still keep scaly, "skin over skeleton" dinosaurs and enormous velociraptors despite recent changes in thought over what dinosaurs actually looked like (fur, feathers and possibly fatty deposits). I'm guessing that whoever's in charge decided that leaving the dinosaurs as-is would sell more toys to kids than if they changed a T-Rex with body hair and a beer gut. That and a strong identity had already been built through the original movies with the dinosaurs depicted in a certain way.

As an aside they knew that Velociraptors were turkey sized at the time of of making Jurassic park, Spielberg just preferred the name Velociraptor to the larger Deinonychus's name. During the production of the movie Utahraptor was discovered, Utahraptor basically fits Spielberg's 'perfect' movie monster interpretation of a raptor to a tee (what was it I said about how it was odd how reality is often more beautiful then the fiction it inspires again!?), had the movie gone into production maybe 6 months later then it did then maybe every bodies favorite dinosaur would be Utahraptor and not Velociraptor...

Anyhow I simply don't see any evidence that anybody in Canberra is going to have a violent reaction to the removal of horns from a "viking" helmet in the way that crazy fundamentalists from the south of the US threatened to do if Universal put feathers on the dinosaurs...
It was going to happen for the third movie once it was confirmed without a shadow of a doubt that in fact some dinosaurs did have feathers in the late 90s, remember those little spiny things on top of the raptors heads in the 3rd movie, yeah those were the studio caving to pressure from religious crazies while still trying to appeal to the scientists...

I'm not the keenest history buff but I see enough to have a rough idea of what comes from where and when. Yes, the helmets you posted look like something the vikings would wear, but they contain features that could easily lead the uninformed to believe they could be a Norman helmet, or a Saxon one, or a Gaulish one, or even a Byzantine helmet. And you could just explain it to people and enlighten them as you've said, but in doing that, the identity fails to achieve what I consider to be the fundamental purpose of its existence.

Using that standard then the uninformed would be inclined to confuse them anyway with or without horns, so who cares, tell em it's a viking and move on.

BTW, Normans basically were Vikings, and no their helmets didn't really look anything like your average Viking helmet, they were basically your average Frankish helmets from the time (so a nasal helmet).
I can understand getting Vikings and Saxons confused they had very similar aesthetics, hell experts in the field have confused them on more than one occasion, but I doubt that having horns changes those circumstances anyway.
Really Gauls! Your more likely to confuse a horned helm with a Gaulish helmet than with any actual viking helmet, they were Celts they had all sorts of shit (horns, wings, animals) hanging off their helmets.
The only Byzantinan helmets you'd confuse with Viking helmets are some Varangian guard helmets, and that's cause the Verangian guard were literally Vikings, so you'd be confusing a viking helmet with a viking helmet....

Regarding superheroes and Vikings (tv show) as examples where horns aren't used yet achieve massive commercial success - they may not use horns but both lean heavily on non-factual, non-educational aspects of the viking persona. The superhero one seems to lean heavily on viking mythology and the TV show is a stylistic depiction of the time period, with some mystic aspects, and with historical figures from decades/centuries apart all mashed together for the sake of practicality. Its true that they manage to make plenty of money despite not using the horns, but I think using them as an example to follow when you're pushing for historical accuracy is a bit contradictory.

My only point in bringing up Thor and Vikings (they also aren't the only examples that could be sighted) was that they were viking related franchises that are hugely successful (more successful then we could ever hope the Raiders to be) that didn't have horned helmets yet people still understand that they are depicting Vikings...

I haven't and won't make an argument for historical accuracy, cause it's not my argument, at best it's an added bonus of changing the helmet if/when the club changes it's image.
My argument (if you can even call it that) is only that if the club where to change it's image including the logo, then they should go for a more serious and aggressive look, and a Gjermundbu helmet is more conducive to that, it's also got added bonuses like being a unique image in our field, etc.

BTW did you know that the raider on the Raiders logo wasn't necessarily meant to be a viking in the beginning? Yeah it was turned into a viking post hoc when Victor was introduced, beforehand it was just a "medieval" looking dude on the logo.

 

[The Great Dane]

Double, my bad.

 

[mistertaylor]

Thanks for the history lesson.

In the interests of historical accuracy, i look forward to the Cowboys adding spurs on their boots in 2019.

 

[gzerounian]

Sea Eagles aren't actually maroon and white

 

[beave]

Im normally a stickler for the rules. But after seeing these pics kicking around social media today, I say f**k the 2018 NQ horns bullshit and go back to this for 2019


I actually want to cry it looks that good. There’s been a fair bit of positive comment about it as well which I hope the club takes on board.

 

[kdalymc]

f**k me dead some people need a time out.
Maybe it’s a RAIDER, and he can have horns.. like WTF is a titan. Or a rabbitoh. Storm arnt humans!!!! Warriors arnt from Vodafone!!!

On another note, bulldogs home jersey is the worse in the league.

 

[beave]

 

[Saint Doc]

So good!!

 

[beave]

So good!!

It is now my mission to make

#bringbackthe95 go viral.......

 

[Zerô]

I don’t understand what you would achieve anyway from getting rid of the horns? I mean they’re a marketing tool and kids like them? What does “historical accuracy” achieve? Were there any Vikings who lived in Belconnen? Or Tuggeronong? Or Gunghalin?

St.George supposedly slayed a Dragon. Would it do Saints any favours to have a bloke on a horse put a sword through Happy Dragon as he leads the team out, in the interests of historical accuracy?!

To be fair, Woden is the name of a Norse god

 

[Saint Doc]

It is now my mission to make

#bringbackthe95 go viral.......

All these clubs 90’s and beyond...look at saints, Souths, easts, Dogs, etc... if you have a good jersey, just stick with it! Tweak it from time to time, play around with the away and alternate. But that cowboys jersey is a classic. It screams North Queensland. Why would you ever change it?

 

[Zerô]

Knights have had a modern monogram on the inside collar for sometime now, but tonight I noticed Tigers had one too on their warm up jersey. Must be an ISC thing. Any other teams doing it?

 

[Foreign Legion]

gee that shirt looks flash, even id buy that

 

[gzerounian]

Growing up as a kid I always thought the mascot was a "Woodger"

 

[GAZF]

Bunch of words from two keyboards ago

Man, you're exhausting! I disagree on a few points but its tough to argue here, because your arguments are both well thought out and researched, without gumming up the thread with my own ramblings and pissing everyone off. If anything, its a decent reason for dedicating a sub-forum to all identity discussion so that it could be broken up into separate threads.

I can't match the enthusiasm but I'd be happy to discuss further points and share some ideas/concepts by PM if you'd like though I'm currently stretched for time so it would have to be over a longer time period.

I was under a similar impression as @Zerô that the viking identity had something to do with Woden and maybe a local rugby club (not a local so I don't know).

 

[Saint Doc]

Man, you're exhausting! I disagree on a few points but its tough to argue here, because your arguments are both well thought out and researched, without gumming up the thread with my own ramblings and pissing everyone off. If anything, its a decent reason for dedicating a sub-forum to all identity discussion so that it could be broken up into separate threads.

I can't match the enthusiasm but I'd be happy to discuss further points and share some ideas/concepts by PM if you'd like though I'm currently stretched for time so it would have to be over a longer time period.

I was under a similar impression as @Zerô that the viking identity had something to do with Woden and maybe a local rugby club (not a local so I don't know).

It’s interesting. I’ve been to the Vikings Club in Canberra that overlooks the rugby club, but I never actually wondered why Canberra’s biggest rugby union club and the first grade rugby league team adopted Viking personas. A quick look at Vikings website and wiki page doesn’t shed any light, other than the fact they were originally based in Woden, although from what I read they didn’t use the nickname then.

I always thought the Raiders referred to “raiding” Sydney of their NSWRL premierships. And that the LA Raiders (later Oakland, soon to be Las Vegas) were inspiration, similar to Denver Broncos and Dallas Cowboys.

 

[LESStar58]

Im normally a stickler for the rules. But after seeing these pics kicking around social media today, I say f**k the 2018 NQ horns bullshit and go back to this for 2019


I actually want to cry it looks that good. There’s been a fair bit of positive comment about it as well which I hope the club takes on board.

That's a beauty of a shirt!

 

[beave]

1. We have no evidence that horns are more marketable, in fact we have a good chunk of evidence that it makes no difference whats so ever (as provided before).

2. My argument (to be honest it wasn't really any argument) was never one for historical accuracy, stop straw-manning it.

Put simply one of these images has the image I'd be looking for in pursuit of a "scarier" more aggressive look that takes it's self more seriously than the other-

As an aside they knew that Velociraptors were turkey sized at the time of of making Jurassic park, Spielberg just preferred the name Velociraptor to the larger Deinonychus's name. During the production of the movie Utahraptor was discovered, Utahraptor basically fits Spielberg's 'perfect' movie monster interpretation of a raptor to a tee (what was it I said about how it was odd how reality is often more beautiful then the fiction it inspires again!?), had the movie gone into production maybe 6 months later then it did then maybe every bodies favorite dinosaur would be Utahraptor and not Velociraptor...

Anyhow I simply don't see any evidence that anybody in Canberra is going to have a violent reaction to the removal of horns from a "viking" helmet in the way that crazy fundamentalists from the south of the US threatened to do if Universal put feathers on the dinosaurs...
It was going to happen for the third movie once it was confirmed without a shadow of a doubt that in fact some dinosaurs did have feathers in the late 90s, remember those little spiny things on top of the raptors heads in the 3rd movie, yeah those were the studio caving to pressure from religious crazies while still trying to appeal to the scientists...



Using that standard then the uninformed would be inclined to confuse them anyway with or without horns, so who cares, tell em it's a viking and move on.

BTW, Normans basically were Vikings, and no their helmets didn't really look anything like your average Viking helmet, they were basically your average Frankish helmets from the time (so a nasal helmet).
I can understand getting Vikings and Saxons confused they had very similar aesthetics, hell experts in the field have confused them on more than one occasion, but I doubt that having horns changes those circumstances anyway.
Really Gauls! Your more likely to confuse a horned helm with a Gaulish helmet than with any actual viking helmet, they were Celts they had all sorts of shit (horns, wings, animals) hanging off their helmets.
The only Byzantinan helmets you'd confuse with Viking helmets are some Varangian guard helmets, and that's cause the Verangian guard were literally Vikings, so you'd be confusing a viking helmet with a viking helmet....



My only point in bringing up Thor and Vikings (they also aren't the only examples that could be sighted) was that they were viking related franchises that are hugely successful (more successful then we could ever hope the Raiders to be) that didn't have horned helmets yet people still understand that they are depicting Vikings...

I haven't and won't make an argument for historical accuracy, cause it's not my argument, at best it's an added bonus of changing the helmet if/when the club changes it's image.
My argument (if you can even call it that) is only that if the club where to change it's image including the logo, then they should go for a more serious and aggressive look, and a Gjermundbu helmet is more conducive to that, it's also got added bonuses like being a unique image in our field, etc.

BTW did you know that the raider on the Raiders logo wasn't necessarily meant to be a viking in the beginning? Yeah it was turned into a viking post hoc when Victor was introduced, beforehand it was just a "medieval" looking dude on the logo.

You’d be a real hoot at partys..........