Author Topic: Jumper No's  (Read 1273 times)

PuntRdRoar

  • Guest
Jumper No's
« on: February 17, 2006, 10:13:18 PM »
Have they been fixed- by that i mean similar to maybe the essendon style no's...or are we gonna get more mistakes with the numbers. Have any of you seen the new hummel jumpers with the numbers on them or are there any pics of the jumpers with the new numbers on them. thanx Ramps.

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58595
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Jumper No's
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2006, 05:12:01 AM »
Haven't seen them so far RT. At training and in the intra-club games the boys just use the old-school numbers on the back of the training guernseys.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58595
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Jumper No's
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2006, 11:47:45 AM »
Just an update RT - I've heard (could be a load of garbage mind you lol) that we'll be returning to the larger traditional "old school" numbers this year. Also keeping the black outline around the numbers is still being decided upon.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

PuntRdRoar

  • Guest
Re: Jumper No's
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2006, 02:22:31 PM »
maybe the hummell tops on saturday will give us an indication. basically the numbers need to be thicker and bigger thats all. its not like you need einstein to work it out lol.

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 98065
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Jumper No's
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2006, 08:15:42 PM »
Here's what the numbers for 2006 look like thanks to Moi:


Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58595
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Jumper No's
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2006, 08:31:51 PM »
Here's what the numbers for 2006 look like thanks to Moi:



Not sure if the numbers are bigger than last year's. From the photo they are clear and the two digits aren't squashed together. 

For those there today, were the numbers easier to read from a distance?
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Moi

  • Guest
Re: Jumper No's
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2006, 08:35:18 PM »
I am the litmus test for jumper numbers (Mrs Magoo lol) - will let you know after round one if they're any good.

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Jumper No's
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2006, 09:25:48 PM »
I actually think they are going to be fine (as I posted on the family day thread).

I was standing a fair way away from the stage and could make out the numbers without a problem.

I think they are the same size as last year but more importantly they are clearly more round in shape and not so bucnhed together - OLD SCHOOL numbers is a good term for them
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

PuntRdRoar

  • Guest
Re: Jumper No's
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2006, 11:29:49 PM »
i think we are gonna have issues again, the numbers arent fat enough i reckon.

Offline Harry

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
  • Fighting injustice and incompetence
Re: Jumper No's
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2006, 02:53:25 AM »
The numbers look fine and are definately bigger and wider than last years.  The problem with last years numbers was that they were too squashed and didn't cover the entire width of the back of the jumper (some fancy crap font was used).  These numbers are the old school numbers and are much clearer.  There will still be the issue of the white on yellow creating it difficult at times from a distance but it's a massive improvemet on last year.  Note last year coburg also used similar numbers and it was very difficult to read without the yellow on white issue.  The design of the number was the main issue.
Does anyone have half an idea on anything?