I'm not suggesting that you do, my point is that you weren't even attacking a point that was being made and instead inserted a point into the argument and attacked that point (again a point that I never seriously held), when it wasn't pertinent to what was being discussed anyway.
I read the part that I was addressing as you being disappointed in the negative visual impact of the missing part of the sleeve stripe. How am I to know whether you're being serious or not? And am I not allowed to add a point to the discussion based on an assumption (now proven to be incorrect) if I find it to be relevant or just a general comment on how any throwback has its weak points?
Well, yeah I am actually arguing the point you brought up cause you are suggesting that the Raiders reproduction of the original designs are lesser cause the sponsorship is obstructing the bands and hence isn't being true to the original design when in reality often the bands were obstructed in the original design as well, so it could be argued that they are being true to multiple versions of the original design even with the bands being obstructed by sponsors.
I never said they were inferior in my original point. I was just pointing out that every throwback has its weak points and that the Widnes version was a pretty good throwback despite the changes made to them for practical considerations.
I personally think the 2008 throwback is the best of all of them (the supporters version fit sucks fwiw) because they also matched the club and CMFEU sponsor logos to a specific era. But the sleeve sponsor covering the stripe is a definite weak point.
On that topic, despite older designs having logos over the sleeve stripes, they were never covering them up to the degree that any of the throwbacks you posted did - Ansett in 1996 is the worst case that comes to mind. The era that the 2008 throwback references to didn't even have sleeve sponsors (other than the 1987/89 GF) but did have sleeve numbers interchangeably above or partly on top of the stripe.
Its a practical concession because sponsors are a necessary evil just like adapting designs to a modern template is. But there are alternatives to having the sleeve stripe covered and the club didn't bother trying any until 2015 (high sleeve stripe, low sponsor).
Keep in mind that everything below here was not my initial point but its been coaxed out in the discussion.
I would say that they are visually equal, the designs are effectively the same hence why saying "out of all the times the raiders have done a remake of their 80's/90's jersey, none have been as good as this Widnes one" was an ignorant thing to say and is simply incorrect.
I don't think that's a completely true statement given that the 20 year jersey from 2001 doesn't seem to replicate any previous design, if that's how you're marking them. It could be a mix of designs though.
@gzerounian could have said the Widnes throwback was the best simply because he prefers that iteration of the design (he did outline the design features he liked after all), which would make it his subjective opinion based at least partly on looks and not ignorant and incorrect as you suggested.
The same is true of the shade of green when people say this shade of green or that shade of green is more accurate to the original shade of green or that this or that shade of green is the iconic Raiders green when the club pretty much had a different shade of green every year (and sometimes multiple times a year), so there really is no definitive single shade that is 'the Raiders shade'.
Oh and BTW it isn't abjectly false it did happen relatively often, look at Laurie's Jersey here-
It's not the best example, but better examples (or worse depending on your point of view) did exist, I just couldn't find one during my quick Google search.
All good points. Not necessarily what you and I were talking about but an interesting aside that is related to the discussion. Where have I seen that before?
Oh and BTW it isn't abjectly false it did happen relatively often, look at Laurie's Jersey here-
I was calling my own point abjectly false to take the piss out of the absolute statements you're very fond of. So I guess we're now 1-1 for both misinterpreting points and misinterpreting humour.
