Cowboys uniform discussion

[RevanFan]

I'm trying to figure out now when the helmet nametag thing started. Was in in 1960 or 1964? It definitely started in 1964. There's photos of Don Meredith with his back turned and it has the nametag on the helmet. But the pictures from 1960-1963 aren't exactly high quality. It's hard to tell.

[RevanFan]

Here are some pics. I can't tell if there's a nametag on the helmet or not. Can you?

Spoiler:

EDIT: Seems like there is.

Spoiler:

[NICK]

The helmet I redid that originally was a 1992 version that was silver with very dark navy decals. The images are NOT a before and after look. It is the same helmet that I painted with a spray gun based on what I saw in the documentary " Tom Landry A Football Life" In the documentary In the 1960's training camp scene in Thousand Oaks California I saw The Cowboys helmet to be a Light metallic silver blue that the team years ago called Royal metallic silver blue. I used a light metallic blue and mixed by eyeballing it with Metallic silver. when I took the photos I had my front door open intentionally and had daylight come into the house and shine on the helmet from about 15 feet away. I took my initial pictures from about five feet away and as you can see the decals look dark. I even got within two feet of the helmet and at a downward angle took the photo that still showed the decals to be dark. I then moved the helmet by my front door in the casting of normal daylight and the decals took on their royal color, otherwise they look relatively dark. The silver blue also was more apparent, otherwise it just looked silver with a slight bluish hue. The stars I built myself by layering the blue and white vinyl and then clear coated them to remove the layer lines. I used a cricket vinyl cutting machine to cut the vinyl to the exact same size of the stars that originally came with the helmet. Looks very similar to what we have seen for years in photos of Cowboy helmets that originally were light metallic blue. I believe they just went with a glossy flat gray silver following the 1973 season. The helmet changed to a fine metal flake during the Jimmy Johnson era I believe in 1993. I remember I first noticed the metal flake during the Dallas Oakland game played on a sunny day in the Oakland coliseum whatever year that game was played. The helmet they wear now has bigger metal flakes in the paint, but I don't think it's as dramatic as some teams now use. Sorry about the pics being a little blurry, not too good with a cell phone camera.

[NICK]

Here are some pics. I can't tell if there's a nametag on the helmet or not. Can you?

Those helmets look like reproductions and should be labeled as such on the site if they are. I don't believe they used the dymotape on the white helmet, I think they just wrote the players number in the helmet either on tape or on the interior of the helmet itself. Not even sure what year dymotape came out, probably wasn't until the middle 60's or later.

[RevanFan]

Here are some pics. I can't tell if there's a nametag on the helmet or not. Can you?

Those helmets look like reproductions and should be labeled as such on the site if they are. I don't believe they used the dymotape on the white helmet, I think they just wrote the players number in the helmet either on tape or on the interior of the helmet itself. Not even sure what year dymotape came out, probably wasn't until the middle 60's or later.

Well, it's definitely on the 1964 helmet. But with the 60-63 set, it's too hard to tell from the game photos.

Also, one of the photos is from a page that shows many images of the helmet, including a look inside that has the number written on it (17). And the ink looked quite a bit faded. But I honestly can't tell. I'd say I'd leave it off for now, and just add it if I ever notice something new. But I definitely want to add the nametag to the helmets that came after.

[NICK]

Upon further review of Gridiron-Uniforms.com, it would seem they say that Dallas had two tone pants from 1964 to 1973 and again from 1978 to 1985. According to their graphics of the uniforms, 1964-1970 had the front as a darker tone with the back and crotch as a lighter tone.

All of their information is incorrect and is solely based on appearance from photos otherwise you would see in their documentation the true colors of the pants and jerseys represented in the photos of the three pairs of game pants I posted. That is the reason for this post. The actual three pants they wore in the 60's, 70's, and 80's I have already posted. when I saw them it shocked me. I started to scrutinize every photo I could find. The pants you see in the superbowl 5 pics are the exact same pants worn in the ice bowl game and throughout the 60's but it's hard to find any two sets of photos to agree with respect to color or shade. To understand how you can have so many contradictions in the photos themselves within the same timeframe, you have to understand the real source of the information which is the camera itself and how color photography works. The quality of the camera and the quality of the film matters as well. The cameras could not capture accurately the shades as they appeared in real life. There were some exceptions to this in very few and rare occasions. The other thing is all color film deteriorates and loses color in the film era of color photography. Most of these photos were not taken during the lossless digital color age and are for the most part digital scans of the original prints or are photos taken of photos. I highly doubt that any of the images we look at of the old cowboys are digital recreations from the negatives and even if they were, the color emulsion chemicals would have broken down to varying degrees. What this means is that lack of color camera technology and film that loses color information by deteriorating causes every photo to not be accurate with respect to color shades or lighting. Coincidentally the same thing happens to all of the old Detroit lions photos as well. They too were a nightmare to do because of the same inconsistencies with regard to photos and or film.

From what I have read, the human eye basically breaks down the entire color spectrum into three basic shades that when superimposed over one another makes one see in normal color. The camera technology in the first two decades of modern color film technology covers the 60's and 70's eras. The cameras were also based on the three shades the human eye sees and that is rgb or red, blue, and green. The camera would basically take the light coming into the camera and take three separate pictures at once superimposed over the top of each other one red, one green, and one blue. The light would be etched onto the film in negative with color emulsifiers set up for each of the three colors in the three color layers. The red, green, and blue channels so to speak would cause the human eye to see the final image in normal color, but the chemicals on the film would deteriorate. The better the film, the better the picture and the more durable the picture. Now the color spectrum is derived from normal sunlight, not artificial light. The more light you allow into the camera, the more steady or motionless the camera had to be. More light equals better exposure and collection of more of the color spectrum. When taking action shots of motion by regular camera film or movie camera, the faster the shutter speed has to be and allows far less light into the camera. Less light equals faster shutter speed but less color spectrum, more light equals more color spectrum but the camera has to basically be motionless to avoid the picture being blurry if you want maximum exposure and color spectrum. The human eye is no different. You can't see color in the dark. The more light that enters the eye, the more color the eye can see.

A plathora of variables determine whether or not you can capture the proper shade of a particular color. The most important is the lighting and then distance matters as well. That's just for the human eye. More difficult for a camera. Let's take the color blue. On one end of the spectrum you have navy blue, and the other you have light blue. Royal or medium blue is more in the middle of the spectrum. The amount of shading to a color whether being looked at with the human eye or a camera is gonna depend on distance from the color, lighting, and distance. If all of the conditions are perfect you will see or capture medium blue, if not then you will capture or see a darker shade.

Same thing occurs with my cowboy helmet on my shelf at home. Looking at it now only 12 feet away and it looks just as navy blue as it can get even almost black. I know the actual color is a bright royal blue, but if I didn't know this, I would bet my life that the decals are a dark navy. The more lighting that is put on the helmet and the closer I get, the blue appears closer to it's actual color. I will never see the actual color unless the color is in actual sunlight, the source for the entire color spectrum.

Until I found those three pairs of pants online I thought I knew what Colors Dallas wore in the 60s, 70's, and 80's based on what had been documented by other people and what I saw in photos and on film. All of that with very few exceptions was a lie until we get to the digital high definition era of cameras and television.

[RevanFan]

I can't possibly believe that the pants from the 1980s are the exact same as from the 1960s. The colors are radically different (even though technology being better could obviously be a factor), and they redesigned the uniforms completely around that time.

The ones from the 60s and 70s being the same? Yeah, I can see that. However, the photo technology explanation doesn't solve why it looks in photos like their are two different tones in the late 60s and early 70s, then only one tone in the mid 70s, then two tones again in the late 70s and early 80s, does it?

EDIT: Upon reviewing the pants photos you posted early in this thread, the color do look different to me. Not as drastically different as in the game photos, but still different.

[NICK]

I can't possibly believe that the pants from the 1980s are the exact same as from the 1960s. The colors are radically different (even though technology being better could obviously be a factor), and they redesigned the uniforms completely around that time.

The ones from the 60s and 70s being the same? Yeah, I can see that. However, the photo technology explanation doesn't solve why it looks in photos like their are two different tones in the late 60s and early 70s, then only one tone in the mid 70s, then two tones again in the late 70s and early 80s, does it?

EDIT: Upon reviewing the pants photos you posted early in this thread, the color do look different to me. Not as drastically different as in the game photos, but still different.

There are three different pants for three different eras, one for the 60's, one for the 70's, and one for the early 80's. They change because the camera technology was getting better with respect to advancements in kodak film. When you get to the early 80's pants, the green that was real dark in the 60's, a little lighter in the 70's, is gone because it was not needed anymore. Tex was all about the Cowboys being on tv and looking good on tv. When you start seeing royal blue on the white jersey vivid and not washed out, you are then looking at photos that are way more advanced than what could be achieved in the 60's and 70's. It's like putting a high performance engine in your car but having square wheels. You can only use what the technology allows.

I'll also add that if we go by what the photos tell us then, the cowboys didn't have a few sets of pants or decals or colors, they had many many different sets......imagine the cost to constantly be recoloring your team every game or year. The cost would be astronomical and at the time, the NFL had the merger in 1970 and was just starting to make money because of tv and the new color era of tv. Tex was a tightwad with money and wouldn't even pay his top players what they were worth. He's not spending a bunch of Murchison's money on all these different pants and helmets and whatnot just to use different shades of color. They had one royal blue, one royal metallic silver blue color and that was accented by the green color. The green was gradually phased out, but it took almost three decades to do it because of color photography technology.

[NICK]

Cowboys in Thousand Oaks California circa 1964 to 1966 wearing Royal Blue Jerseys. Note the degree of blue in the helmet. Light metallic blue. This is harder to detect the degree of blue in the color with the blue stripes on the helmet, but with the color standing against just the white stripe, you can clearly see how blue the helmet actually was. You will very rarely see these colors in photos or film of that time period the way you do here. There is still some washout detectable in the photo however the camera, probably on a tripod with a lower shutter speed for longer light exposer, was able to capture enough of the blue color spectrum to display the colors very close to what they actually were. Just wish they had the game pants on. No doubt it would have captured that dark awful green on the backside and crotch area which may have very well looked blue on film like the helmet had it been there.
Don Meredith at quarterback with Don perkins to the right. Behind Perkins is a guy still wearing a white helmet. The Cowboys used old game stuff in practice so you'll see the old white and royal jerseys mixed in with the three striper jerseys.

[RevanFan]

Cowboys in Thousand Oaks California circa 1964 to 1966 wearing Royal Blue Jerseys. Note the degree of blue in the helmet. Light metallic blue. This is harder to detect the degree of blue in the color with the blue stripes on the helmet, but with the color standing against just the white stripe, you can clearly see how blue the helmet actually was. You will very rarely see these colors in photos or film of that time period the way you do here. There is still some washout detectable in the photo however the camera, probably on a tripod with a lower shutter speed for longer light exposer, was able to capture enough of the blue color spectrum to display the colors very close to what they actually were. Just wish they had the game pants on. No doubt it would have captured that dark awful green on the backside and crotch area which may have very well looked blue on film like the helmet had it been there.
Don Meredith at quarterback with Don perkins to the right. Behind Perkins is a guy still wearing a white helmet. The Cowboys used old game stuff in practice so you'll see the old white and royal jerseys mixed in with the three striper jerseys.

Honestly, part of me kind of wants to put the 1964 helmet on the 1960 uniform and vice versa and call them "practice uniforms." Would probably want the practice-specific pants too though.

That's really fascinating. The NFL didn't have all of its uniform regulations back then, so when you have a big roster, you might as well just use whatever equipment you have, right? I'm just disappointed there aren't any good back views of the white helmet there. Could have gotten an answer once and for all on the nametag haha.