It’s from Celtic, so I didn’t want to like it. But I do. Sort of. The shirt looks pretty good at first glance, but you realize just how fantastic it is when you see the design close up:
That’s not just a random tartan design on the shirt, it is an enlarged view of the actual club tartan used by Celtic F.C. with the appropriate colors and widths of both the warp and the weft. Speaking of the warp and weft, one line of each is used in conjunction with the circular crest to create an approximation of a Celtic cross- or so say Nike (more on their marketing nonsense in a moment). This shirt is easily the most handsome one to be part of the club’s away kit since it was founded in 1888. Unfortunately, as you can see from the picture at the top of the post, the shorts and socks do not do it justice.
Both the shorts and the socks are done in dark green with even darker green detailing- I assume that means the detailing matches the darkest color of the detailing on the shirt. Frankly, in every picture I’ve seen of the socks (I can’t find any “side view” of the shorts online) it looks like the detailing is black- see below. The shorts have a single, darker single stripe down the side and the socks have a darker band around the cuffs as well as a, “wide tonal stripe of chevrons” on the back (I’ve yet to find a picture which showing the latter detail of the sock design). What I must ask, is the point of that? Is it really an “accent” or “highlighting” if there isn’t enough contrast between the colors to be noticed unless one is within an arm’s length of the person wearing the kit? I really feel like Nike and Celtic missed the boat here. How about repeating the yellow, warp-weft, Celtic cross motif on the left leg? Why not use the lighter “kelly green” shade for a side stripe or detailing around the hem? Either of these would have made the shorts “pop” (I can’t believe I just said that) in a way that they simply do not in their current form.
If that was too much to ask, why not use one or both of those colors on the socks? The canvas is a little smaller and more subtle and that might have been just the thing if it was felt that repeating the shirt’s design on the shorts could have made the whole look a little too garish. Instead, these are the socks-
A few final thoughts before I close.
According to Nike for the 2014-15 season, “Celtic will play in a predominantly green away kit inspired by the design of the club’s first away kit.” There’s just one teensy problem with that statement: unless Nike have uncovered a kit that the folks over at Historical Football Kits have missed- and I HIGHLY doubt that- Celtic’s first away kit wasn’t predominantly green.
In fact, Celtic would not wear a predominantly green away kit until it wore the- count with me- 21st version of it’s away kit in 1964-65, which featured a green shirt and shorts with minimal white trim and all-white socks. You’re a multi-billion dollar company, Nike, at least try!
This new shirt will also be available without the Magner’s logo on the front. Offering sponsor-less tops has become pretty common place recently when the sponsor has been alcohol, gambling, etc. related for supporters who have issues with such products or pursuits, or who feel that putting a shirt with this kind of a sponsor on a child or young person is in bad taste. I applaud Celtic for giving their supporters this option. I also think the shirt looks better without it from an aesthetic standpoint.
For those who might be wondering, Celtic will wear the same home kit in 2014-2015 that they wore last season- a bit of a rarity among money-grubbing clubs with international fan bases, it must be said.