1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
Moderator: Gnome
- Bobby Orangeboom
- Posts: 34465
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:10 pm
- Location: London, unfortunately.
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
They're on here, make sure you've got your Cold Flannel handy... :lol:
http://www.gsretro.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.gsretro.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Cuenca 'ammer
- ex 'ouston 'ammer
- Posts: 40710
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:19 pm
- Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado
- Has liked: 1904 likes
- Total likes: 1612 likes
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
f*** me Robert, Grant has gone on endlessly about us wearing PINK and I mention it just ONCE and you were all over me like a cheap suit..
It's Bloody SALMON 'ouston you useless git ~ SALMON...
and not once have you pulled "him" up on it...
And as I said before U.G. you gorgeous redhead you, blue won't suit....especially "baby blue..."
It's Bloody SALMON 'ouston you useless git ~ SALMON...
and not once have you pulled "him" up on it...
And as I said before U.G. you gorgeous redhead you, blue won't suit....especially "baby blue..."
- Bobby Orangeboom
- Posts: 34465
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:10 pm
- Location: London, unfortunately.
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
That's because Grant is a Professor & you're not...Cuenca 'ammer wrote:f*** me Robert, Grant has gone on endlessly about us wearing PINK and I mention it just ONCE and you were all over me like a cheap suit..
It's Bloody SALMON 'ouston you useless git ~ SALMON...
and not once have you pulled "him" up on it...
And as I said before U.G. you gorgeous redhead you, blue won't suit....especially "baby blue..."
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
There are two distinctive sides to this....
1. Evidence for and against pink.
HK and others listed pink for a number of years, they have all subsequently revised that to blue they say on the basis of better evidence, that's their call.
Pink does not fit into the history of the kit, there is no prior or subsequent inkling toward it, it looks decidedly odd in the lineage and in the logical evolution of the kit.
I have independently looked for evidence of pink, and havn't been able to find any anywhere, not the first mention of it related to WHU, I have not been able to uncover any reason why anybody should have thought pink in the first place - A complete and utter total blank.
The fact that I found reference to Portsmouth and South West Ham FC pink of the period proves that I was effective in looking for evidence of pink.
2. Evidence for and against blue.
Definitely Castle blue at Thames Ironworks 1897 / 1898 / 1899, there are several contemporary reports of it, plus team photos consistent with it.
Definitely Castle blue at WHU 1903 right through until current, leaving just two years in 114 years (1901/02) in contention.
Blue does fit in with the history, logical evolution and lineage of the kit.
Evidence for Castle blue is everywhere related to both TIW and WHU. The only colours I have found reference to are: Oxford blue (1895/6 only) claret (sometimes historically referred to as red), Castle blue, white (including all white change strip), scarlet (socks, waistbands and caps TIW only)
Note: I have not been able to find reference to the black socks claimed for the 1901 kit, they also seem odd and would seem more plausibly to me to be scarlet which appears black in B&W photos and which would be a continuation from 1897/98/99.
There is the specific quote about the game in 1901 saying blue was worn that is correct in the opponents, the date of the game, and about it being the first home game of the season. Everything that is checkable about the quote checks out and that is a good basis for it being reliable.
I have no reason to doubt this quote as it is consistent with everything that is known and not inconsistent with anything that is known - This quote needs to be outrightly doubted on no substantive basis that I can see for it to be discredited.
General: There is nothing in any way wrong with people revising what they honestly thought in the light of better evidence than they had to make them think something in the first place. That is the way that knowledge (and specifically in my background scientific knowledge) works. It is normality for knowledge to be revised closer to correct as more becomes known.
In conclusion I cannot independently find ANY evidence for pink, not the first shred.
The only people who ever did have reason to think pink have revised which is exactly what they should do if they think they were wrong.
There is a groundswell of evidence both specific and in general for blue which needs to be undervalued generally and specifically doubted for no good reason that I can determine in order to downplay it.
If this were a boxing match then its a first round knockout, if a football match its a 7-0 rout, if cricket an innings defeat - I cannot find anything to make me think pink while blue comes flying at me everywhere I look.
1. Evidence for and against pink.
HK and others listed pink for a number of years, they have all subsequently revised that to blue they say on the basis of better evidence, that's their call.
Pink does not fit into the history of the kit, there is no prior or subsequent inkling toward it, it looks decidedly odd in the lineage and in the logical evolution of the kit.
I have independently looked for evidence of pink, and havn't been able to find any anywhere, not the first mention of it related to WHU, I have not been able to uncover any reason why anybody should have thought pink in the first place - A complete and utter total blank.
The fact that I found reference to Portsmouth and South West Ham FC pink of the period proves that I was effective in looking for evidence of pink.
2. Evidence for and against blue.
Definitely Castle blue at Thames Ironworks 1897 / 1898 / 1899, there are several contemporary reports of it, plus team photos consistent with it.
Definitely Castle blue at WHU 1903 right through until current, leaving just two years in 114 years (1901/02) in contention.
Blue does fit in with the history, logical evolution and lineage of the kit.
Evidence for Castle blue is everywhere related to both TIW and WHU. The only colours I have found reference to are: Oxford blue (1895/6 only) claret (sometimes historically referred to as red), Castle blue, white (including all white change strip), scarlet (socks, waistbands and caps TIW only)
Note: I have not been able to find reference to the black socks claimed for the 1901 kit, they also seem odd and would seem more plausibly to me to be scarlet which appears black in B&W photos and which would be a continuation from 1897/98/99.
There is the specific quote about the game in 1901 saying blue was worn that is correct in the opponents, the date of the game, and about it being the first home game of the season. Everything that is checkable about the quote checks out and that is a good basis for it being reliable.
I have no reason to doubt this quote as it is consistent with everything that is known and not inconsistent with anything that is known - This quote needs to be outrightly doubted on no substantive basis that I can see for it to be discredited.
General: There is nothing in any way wrong with people revising what they honestly thought in the light of better evidence than they had to make them think something in the first place. That is the way that knowledge (and specifically in my background scientific knowledge) works. It is normality for knowledge to be revised closer to correct as more becomes known.
In conclusion I cannot independently find ANY evidence for pink, not the first shred.
The only people who ever did have reason to think pink have revised which is exactly what they should do if they think they were wrong.
There is a groundswell of evidence both specific and in general for blue which needs to be undervalued generally and specifically doubted for no good reason that I can determine in order to downplay it.
If this were a boxing match then its a first round knockout, if a football match its a 7-0 rout, if cricket an innings defeat - I cannot find anything to make me think pink while blue comes flying at me everywhere I look.
- Hummer_I_mean_Hammer
- Posts: 11573
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:45 pm
- Has liked: 939 likes
- Total likes: 479 likes
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
Booby are you based in Pattaya? I was going past there the other day and saw 'Bobby's fashion shop', or something like that and thought 'where's the pink shirts?' :lol:
- BSB1
- Posts: 6958
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:54 pm
- Location: The only thing to fear, is running out of beer
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
I've got a spare Salmon coloured bale of straw for anyone who want's to clutch at it. :lol:
- Up the Junction
- Thinks he owns the place
- Posts: 70925
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:03 am
- Has liked: 748 likes
- Total likes: 3444 likes
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
Which suggests they must have had some kind of evidence to support a salmon/pink kit in the first place, no?Ironworx wrote:HK and others listed pink for a number of years, they have all subsequently revised that to blue they say on the basis of better evidence, that's their call.
This is irrelevent. Plus it was extremely common for teams to change their colours around the turn of the century/early 20th century.Ironworx wrote:Pink does not fit into the history of the kit, there is no prior or subsequent inkling toward it, it looks decidedly odd in the lineage and in the logical evolution of the kit.
There's been plenty of mention of a pink/salmon kit - you yourself have listed those who have referred to it in the past!Ironworx wrote:I have independently looked for evidence of pink, and havn't been able to find any anywhere, not the first mention of it related to WHU, I have not been able to uncover any reason why anybody should have thought pink in the first place - A complete and utter total blank.
These being black and white photos? Like those people have used as the basis for a salmon/pink kit for several years?Ironworx wrote:Definitely Castle blue at Thames Ironworks 1897 / 1898 / 1899, there are several contemporary reports of it, plus team photos consistent with it.
I imagine a historian would refer to this as 'unsubstantiated supposition'.Ironworx wrote:Note: I have not been able to find reference to the black socks claimed for the 1901 kit, they also seem odd and would seem more plausibly to me to be scarlet which appears black in B&W photos and which would be a continuation from 1897/98/99.
And as we have subsequently discovered, the opponents that day also wore claret and blue during that season whilst it was customary for the home team to change kits in the event of a clash.Ironworx wrote:There is the specific quote about the game in 1901 saying blue was worn that is correct in the opponents, the date of the game, and about it being the first home game of the season. Everything that is checkable about the quote checks out and that is a good basis for it being reliable.
Ironworx wrote:In conclusion I cannot independently find ANY evidence for pink, not the first shred.
If I'm right, your research has uncovered just one report of us wearing an alternative in a game where we would have almost certainly had to provide a change of kit. It's not enough.
Ironworx wrote:If this were a boxing match then its a first round knockout, if a football match its a 7-0 rout, if cricket an innings defeat.
To follow your analogy, you've connected a decent right hook in the first round - but you're a long, long way from landing a knockout blow.
- Arch Dandy
- Posts: 9334
- Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:58 pm
- Location: Bringing you the boos since 1980
- Has liked: 3 likes
- Total likes: 50 likes
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
UTJ, did you buy a load of these pink shirts from Bobby?
- Up the Junction
- Thinks he owns the place
- Posts: 70925
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:03 am
- Has liked: 748 likes
- Total likes: 3444 likes
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
:lol:
Afraid not Arch (though he did send me two for a competition, one of each I think it was).
Afraid not Arch (though he did send me two for a competition, one of each I think it was).
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
As an interested, non partisan on-looker, can I just say that I am writing this salmon shirt saga as an off-beat movie screenplay and can't wait to see how it ends?
Endlessly amusing, in a kind of "men are from mars" way.
Endlessly amusing, in a kind of "men are from mars" way.
- Cuenca 'ammer
- ex 'ouston 'ammer
- Posts: 40710
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:19 pm
- Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado
- Has liked: 1904 likes
- Total likes: 1612 likes
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
Sir Robert..
He says he is a professor....considering all of the supposition that's coming out and unsubstantiated facts I am not so sure..
At least you know me, I don't bull****.....
(well not often anyway..)
:lol:
He says he is a professor....considering all of the supposition that's coming out and unsubstantiated facts I am not so sure..
At least you know me, I don't bull****.....
(well not often anyway..)
:lol:
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
Right, I've had an e-mail that I can't post on an open forum but which I have sent by PM to UtJ so as he can vouch for what I'm about to say, I'm not going to mention anybodies name or the name of any websites....
It would appear that the reason why I've not been able to find anything in favour of pink is because there never was anything from a primary source - There never was a good case for anybody thinking that there was ever a pink shirt.
The source of it is essentially a mistake, somebody thought that there was an old matchday programme article by John Hellier in which he said that there were pink shirts, that was passed on and it appeared on a number of websites.
There never was such an article.
It was eventually challenged as incorrect, which it was, and the person who thought that there was an article contacted the websites personally to say that he wasn't right.
UtJ has seen the e-mail and can confirm.
So, as far as I'm concerned that's it, there never was any evidence for pink shirts so I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
Bobby... Are there any shirts left ? I've got to have one after spending so much time trying to get to the bottom of it
It would appear that the reason why I've not been able to find anything in favour of pink is because there never was anything from a primary source - There never was a good case for anybody thinking that there was ever a pink shirt.
The source of it is essentially a mistake, somebody thought that there was an old matchday programme article by John Hellier in which he said that there were pink shirts, that was passed on and it appeared on a number of websites.
There never was such an article.
It was eventually challenged as incorrect, which it was, and the person who thought that there was an article contacted the websites personally to say that he wasn't right.
UtJ has seen the e-mail and can confirm.
So, as far as I'm concerned that's it, there never was any evidence for pink shirts so I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
Bobby... Are there any shirts left ? I've got to have one after spending so much time trying to get to the bottom of it
- clawhammer
- Posts: 7590
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 8:58 pm
- Has liked: 1 like
- Total likes: 20 likes
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
I'm going to wear mine on Sunday. Anyone who so much as titters will be defeated by an innings!
- mrmoonhasleftthestadium
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:47 pm
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
So some dozy bugger left the claret socks in the wash with the new white away kit so it went salmon?
- FDiMcA
- teh
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:54 pm
- Location: Locked in a cellar, not sure where but I can smell hotdogs
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
this is how worlds turn.Ironworx wrote: The source of it [Pink] is essentially a mistake, somebody thought that there was an old matchday programme article by John Hellier in which he said that there were pink shirts, that was passed on and it appeared on a number of websites.
There never was such an article.
It was eventually challenged as incorrect, which it was, and the person who thought that there was an article contacted the websites personally to say that he wasn't right.
The U.S. Rarities (Capitol SPRO 8969), compiled in Los Angeles, contains two mistakes. For some unknown reason, Sie Liebt Dich and Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand were replaced with the not-too-rare English versions of She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand. The album became a much sought-after collector's item .
Sweden Three Skilling Banco: Yellow Error of Color Normally issued in green, one instance of a yellow variety of this stamp was found in 1885. It was printed with the ink color meant for the 8 skilling banco of the same set. In 1996 the stamp sold for $2.27 million at auction. (1855)
Congrats to Bobby - if he deletes the presses as it were, stops manufacturing the price of these real world manifestations of internet anomalies will go through the roof.
I say take them out of the shop and drip them out on ebay 1 at a time a few months apart.
Yes there is one left, but its price just went up :lol:Ironworx wrote: Bobby... Are there any shirts left ? I've got to have one after spending so much time trying to get to the bottom of it
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
Ther'll be no tittering from me, it was an honest mistake albeit one that should never have happened. What are you supposed to think when something is posted on otherwise fully credible sites on the internet, you take it as gospel, not as something that somebody thought they saw once but really they didn't......clawhammer wrote:I'm going to wear mine on Sunday. Anyone who so much as titters will be defeated by an innings!
Anyhow, they've got a much fuller story to them now, they've got to be a KUMB collectable surely - Like a coin with two tails or a stamp without the queens head on :lol:
- Up the Junction
- Thinks he owns the place
- Posts: 70925
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:03 am
- Has liked: 748 likes
- Total likes: 3444 likes
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
Confirmed - but as I said in my PM to IW (hope IW doesn't mind me sharing) it would be nice to get hold of the person who made the original claim (Bobby, I think you know who I'm referring to) to see if it was a genuine error or whether he definitely read this somewhere. It seems unlikely at this juncture as nobody else can verify it, as IW has pointed out. Of course, that doesn't necessarily rule it out either, as I have said - but as IW has countered, it's far harder to disprove something in this case.Ironworx wrote:The source of it is essentially a mistake, somebody thought that there was an old matchday programme article by John Hellier in which he said that there were pink shirts, that was passed on and it appeared on a number of websites.
There never was such an article.
Kudos to IW for his work so far though, I think - and to Bobby for sticking his neck out there and putting these together.
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
For the record, Thames Iron works play in all navy. WHU initially played in light blue with claret hoop shirts, white shorts or knickers and red socks.
- Bobby Orangeboom
- Posts: 34465
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:10 pm
- Location: London, unfortunately.
Re: 1901/02 WHU Kit, It Was.................
:lol:Wrightster wrote:For the record, Thames Iron works play in all navy. WHU initially played in light blue with claret hoop shirts, white shorts or knickers and red socks.