Jump to content

Paradoxical Foul? Wayne Simmonds 1.0 vs 2.0


FlyersFan376
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, so, I've been looking into getting a blank Flyers jersey to make into a Wayne Simmonds jersey because, well, I want one

My saved ebay searches led me to this: www.ebay.com/itm/Philadelphia-Flyers-Authentic-Reebok-Edge-Premier-Jersey-/201128756808?pt=U_Hockey_Fan_Shop&var=&hash=item2ed4354648

I still have a hard time telling 1.0s from 2.0s in pictures so I asked the seller if he could find a born-on sticker which resulted in "15 2 11"

I also asked him how 'stretchy' and 'form-fitting' the jerseys seem compared to others he's dealt with and he told me it did in fact feel 'stretchier' than most, leading me to believe it is a retail 1.0 made in 2011

Whether or not I'm right, this lead me to ask the question-- since 1.0's were basically phased out around 2009 [1] and the Flyers switched to that style in the 2010-2011 season [2], it seems likely that no Flyers ever actually wore 1.0s on the ice in that style

I looked at the Meigray Population Reports [3] for that year and it seems like that is indeed the case, unless there are omissions or I've overlooked something, which is entirely possible because I do that a lot

By this logic, every 1.0 ever customized by anyone as anyone in that Flyers' style would technically be a foul, right?

I know we've had discussions on this topic about it being a relatively passable foul (1.0 vs 2.0), and I'm sure other teams could be in the same predicament, but I just thought it was funny that it's a foul by default -- does anyone else know of similar situations? Did I miss anything?

References (no, definitely not MLA format)

[1] Akteon's Post

http://forums.icejerseys.com/index.php?showtopic=2032

[2] NHL Uniforms - Flyers

http://www.nhluniforms.com/Flyers/Flyers.html

[3] Meigray Population Reports

http://www.nhlgameworn.com/edealinv/servlet/ExecMacro?nurl=static/PopuReport.vm&ctl_nbr=2490

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your link doesn't seem to work, so I checked it out myself on the Bay. If it's the listing I saw, it's definitely a 1.0 and would probably be a vector jersey.

Whether or not a player wore 1.0 or 2.0 is not really grounds for a foul in my view, but whether or not the players wore a vector or wordmark jersey is.

And because the Wayne Train never wore a vector Flyers jersey, putting him on that jersey would thus be a foul IMO.

But that's just my 2 cents :P

Edited by Girouxsalem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else know of similar situations? Did I miss anything?

The same thing is true of most jersey styles that appeared for the first time after around 2008, when most teams had already phased out the 1.0 for their players. (Exceptions would include the Edmonton Oilers, and any other team that had some holdout players who still preferred the 1.0.) Other examples include the current Kings black home jersey. When it debuted in the 2008/09 season as an alternate, the Kings had already gone exclusively 2.0. But Reebok made nothing but 1.0's to sell to the public. (That is, until Jersey Baron came along.) Other examples are the 2008 and 2009 All-Star Game jerseys. They were all 2.0's for the players, but you could only get a 1.0 at retail.

Edited by LAK74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, the Vector vs Wordmark is something to consider-- while I have no choice but to overlook the 1.0 status, I would consider that a definite foul, thanks for reminding me!

LAK74-- How did I know you'd have a list of examples ready :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LAK74-- How did I know you'd have a list of examples ready :)

Haha, those were just off the top of my head, because I own all of them. I'm sure we could find others just by checking the Uniform database!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pissed I missed out on that size 50. I'm still looking to pick up a 1.0 in that style because the player I want to patch it up for only wore vectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He still has a size 52 i think, idk if size 50 was already a compromise for you but the difference shouldn't be too much, plus the 1.0's are a bit tighter fitting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think somebody said you can get the word mark/vector logos swapped by EPS.

I guess it would vary from collector to collector, but I don't really see the problem with getting a 1.0 customized with a player who only wore a 2.0. It's the exact same design of jersey, it's just a different build/material. Classifying it as a foul would be like classifying a customized replica as a foul since nobody (even know Melnyk would probably like to do it in Ottawa to save money) wear Premiers on the ice.

If I were to drop 300 on a jersey along with the cost of customization, I'd want to be sure what I'm getting is perfect. But when you're grabbing a liquidated or discounted authentic for 100 or so dollars, I don't think it matters. Just think of it like a really great replica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can vector vs. wordmark be a foul, CCM vs. Reebok be a foul, and 1.0 vs. 2.0 not be a foul? It's a jersey the guy never wore.

I'm really not too concerned about all that stuff myself, although the more I hang out here the more I pay attention to that stuff. I'm just interested in the rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point-- this stuff does get expensive, and since absolutely no one has worn a 1.0 all i really need to worry about is vector/wordmark

As for the 1.0/2.0 loophole, if i try and abide by foul rules then i have to leave the jersey blank... If i saw someone wearing a 1.0 'foul' chances are i wouldn't recognize it or care

Vector vs Wordmark is a change in branding and was a new era in jerseys whereas both 1.0/2.0 are the exact same design from the same era and were also worn on the ice simultaneously

Edited by FlyersFan376
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can vector vs. wordmark be a foul, CCM vs. Reebok be a foul, and 1.0 vs. 2.0 not be a foul? It's a jersey the guy never wore.

I'm really not too concerned about all that stuff myself, although the more I hang out here the more I pay attention to that stuff. I'm just interested in the rationale.

My point is that, nobody wears replicas on the ice. Yet, a customized replica is not a foul.

Visually, assuming the word mark or vector is correct, it's the exact same design. If you're paying 100 bucks for a 1.0 to have done up with a 2.0 player's name/number, it's like getting a really well made replica jersey. Nothing wrong with that.

Calling it a foul is silly. Maybe it's not something that you'd want in your collection based on the direction you have chosen to take, but that still doesn't make it a foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Visually, assuming the word mark or vector is correct, it's the exact same design. If you're paying 100 bucks for a 1.0 to have done up with a 2.0 player's name/number, it's like getting a really well made replica jersey. Nothing wrong with that.

Unless you look at the material, then it's visually different.

And by that logic, putting a current player on an old 90's Ultrafil jersey would be equivalent to a well made replica also.

Replicas aren't fouls, but especially amongst those on this page, nobody really wants them anyway.

Like I said, I personally don't care, I'm just trying to get the logic, it's not getting through my thick skull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like LAK74 said before, 2.0's weren't initially made available for retail. That's my main reason why I can give the 1.0 vs 2.0 a pass as long the player wore the vector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I take that same 1.0 with a 2.0 Vector player on it and say, slap a 2014 Stanley Cup patch on it, or something else specific to a wordmark 2.0 season, have I now created a foul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still learning the ropes. It's clear that it's a thin line between fair and foul, and to some degree, a foul is in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks for the info boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you look at the material, then it's visually different.

And by that logic, putting a current player on an old 90's Ultrafil jersey would be equivalent to a well made replica also.

Replicas aren't fouls, but especially amongst those on this page, nobody really wants them anyway.

Like I said, I personally don't care, I'm just trying to get the logic, it's not getting through my thick skull.

We're clearly not going to agree but I'll just try to re-iterate in case my point is lost on others.

It's nothing like putting a current player on a 90's ultrafil considering the jersey would look completely different, with different branding/tagging.

I understand this forum is geared more towards the higher end of the hobby, but it's a bit unfair to use "nobody [on this page] really wants them" as a reason to completely cut out any discussion or label something as a foul because it's geared towards those willing to compromise for bargains. There is obviously a segment of people within this forum who this topic would appeal to considering it exists.

As I said, nobody would be discussing the concept of a customized Premier being a foul. Just consider a properly tagged 1.0 with a 2.0 player the same as purchasing a replica. If you sort out the word mark tagging, visually, it's the same design as a 2.0, just with a different build. Hence the suggestion of considering it a replica.

Labelling it as a foul isn't right. It's just not up to the standards of what some people here collect, which is fine. For what might be a smaller segment of people here, a properly customized/tagged 1.0 makes a great alternative to a Reebok Premier for jerseys that we otherwise wouldn't be able to get, or wouldn't want to drop 300 on.

Edited by hockeyjerseyssuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you on the majority of those points, except:

1) A 1.0 looks different than a 2.0, especially if you know what you are looking at.

2) if you don't know what you are looking at, a 1.0, 2.0, 6100 and CCM Ultrafil can appear the same, especially for teams whose design is essentially the same (like my Devils).

3) Replicas are replicas, that doesn't make them a foul. They can never be the same as an on-ice jersey by nature, and as such, they are a completely different animal. If people want to collect them, wear them, etc., I have no problem with that and I don't look down on either the jersey or collector (as some on this board do). But the board's opinion on replicas in General is clear, try selling one in the Marketplace.

4) I'll totally agree that a 1.0 is nicer than a Premier, so if you are using them as a replacement, I see where you are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other examples are the 2008 and 2009 All-Star Game jerseys. They were all 2.0's for the players, but you could only get a 1.0 at retail.

And the Rangers Heritage when it first appeared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't fully realize this until now, but just about every team debuted some third jersey or other new design between 2008-11, so there are tons of designs which were 2.0's for the players but 1.0's for retail. Reebok bastages...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't fully realize this until now, but just about every team debuted some third jersey or other new design between 2008-11, so there are tons of designs which were 2.0's for the players but 1.0's for retail. Reebok bastages...

yes indeed. i have to come this realization in recent weeks as well. 09 'hawks wc jersey and 09/10-10/11 'hawks third jersey both retail 1.0's but the players wore 2.0's. anyone here know what the 08-09 black thirds the 'hawks wore were? 1.0 or 2.0?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the Hawks wore 2.0's during the entire 2008-09 season. Here is an example of a 2.0 alternate from that year:

http://www.gamewornauctions.net/products/2008_09_Nikolai_Khabibulin_Chicago_Blackhawks_Game_Worn_Jersey_Alternate_Team_Letter-4410-118.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2009 and 2011 Winter Classic jerseys were only available at retail as 1.0s while the players wore 2.0s on-ice.

2008 and 2010 Winter Classics did not have authentics made at all -- Pens ultimately adopted theirs as a 3rd for several seasons and Flyers became their road jersey as well, so you could "build" one through patches

Buffalo WC authentic has never been made, and the good Baron delivered Bruins WC 2.0s to all of us desiring one.

2012 and 2014 have been the only WCs where retail 2.0s were available, no 1.0s ever made for either of those games, but the '14 WC did have Indos made though before the 2.0s hit retail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the Hawks wore 2.0's during the entire 2008-09 season. Here is an example of a 2.0 alternate from that year:

http://www.gamewornauctions.net/products/2008_09_Nikolai_Khabibulin_Chicago_Blackhawks_Game_Worn_Jersey_Alternate_Team_Letter-4410-118.html

i thank ya, sir. :thumbsup:

i knew they the 2.0's that year for their home and aways just wasn't sure about the third jersey. makes sense they were 2.0's as well.

does anyone here know then what year the 'hawks switched to the 2.0? 07/08 or 0/09? i haven't been able to find a good photo from that season (07/08), but judging by the sleeves, they look like 2.0's to me...

i would find it extremely humerous if it was 07/08 and all of these toews and kane jerseys i see everywhere (all 1.0's) were never actually even worn by either of them.... nothing like telling someone who spent $300+ on something that is supposed to be "what the players wear" that the player they are wearing never wore it..... :doh:

edit: btw, i know that the edge jerseys were rolled out in 07/08, it just looks like the majority of pics i find of the 'hawks from that year look like 2.0's....

Edited by vadarx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...