By John Turney
The Los Angeles Rams continue to "evolve" their on-field identity in 2026. Following the refined primary uniforms revealed in April, the team will showcase two new alternate uniforms at a special event for season ticket members at the YouTube Theater inside SoFi Stadium.
This marks perhaps the last phase of the Rams' 2020 uniform refresh that was dubious in a lot of ways. The Rams started this year's iteration in April with updates delivering a "cleaner, bolder, and more streamlined aesthetic" to the royal blue home and white away looks. It seems "cleaner, bolder" meant fixing the errors introduced in 2020.
The Rams removed chest tags and gradient numbers/pant stripes. Now the numbers on the royal blue jerseys are solid yellow. They also added "full modern ram horn sleeves
The team retired the polarizing "Bone" alternate, keeping the popular Midnight black Rivalries set in the rotation alongside the refreshed primaries. However, they did not tweak the Ram horn on the helmets, instead using the Fibonacci-style wave horn.
Today, the club added these:
Essentially, they are modern versions of the early 1950s uniforms and the 1960s-early 1970s white-over-white uniforms. They are using the "C" horn, choosing not to do a throwback horn on either kit, but that was expected. Clearly, the Rams are committed to not doing a true throwback.
The 1950s version (they call "Classic Sol") is yellow with blue numerals and an attempt at Northwestern stripes, as much as the jersey cuts will allow. The numbers are block, not rounded. The pants are white with blue and yellow stripes. The helmet is the same as the usual helmet. The odd thing is the socks. They show all white, not blue and that detracts from the look. But no indication if that is official.
The "milkman" uniforms ("Fearsome White") the Rams wore from 1964-72, jerseys are also block letters (with dark blue and black trim) with a fat shoulder stripe. The nameplate lettering is black and a fat blue stripe on the pants with a dark accent on front of the stripe.
 |
 |
| White socks are a mistake. Hopefully they will go with blue. |
In the reveal photos, it looks like white socks but like the yellow jersey kit, blue would be better and it seems they can do either. The white mask on the helmet also detracts, but actually, not as much as the ones they wore in the late 2010s.
 |
| Black (maybe a deep blue) nameplate lettering. |
 |
| Blue numerals with a darker blue and black/deep blue trim. |
 |
| White facemask on the blue and white helmet |
Grade on both: B
the 53-55 Rams yellow jerseys with the blue (white shaded) lettering was arguably the BEST jersey/shirt in NFL history......all this "PC" 21st century nonsense is....well....nonsense.....I'm no Yankee fan, but they've had (more or less) the same apparel/design for 100 years.....maybe there's something to that???
ReplyDeleteagree that the white trimmed numerals looked better .. but the tie in for 1951 NFL title was too strong a pull. And I like traditional, too, but don't mind a well-done modern throwback like the Chargers. To me, they nailed ot.
Deletenot sure exactly to your referehce John, but 1963 Chargers (the SAN DIEGO kind, not the 60 LA or lame post-Laguna Beach Kronke renters kind) were (AFL) perfect.....as everyone on this blog understands, I am NOT a fan of relocation, but criminy....the Dodgers have morphed "Dodger blue" a continent away and it looks great......so WHY don't the Broncos revert to 1960-61 and be done with it?
DeleteI like the early chargers better than the ones now, but my thing is that IF someone has to appeal to current fans ... then the Chargers did it the best. Teams are moving away from tradition, but at least the Chargers did it right, but my reference was of the current "modern throwbacks" or whatever they call it.
Delete"appeal to current fans....".....funny....the New York Yankees have had the same uni for about 100 years and their popularity hasn't seem to have been significantly damaged....(but I do understand your point...)
DeleteI like the white unis with blue accents... they are about as close as the modern Rams are ever going to look to the Rams I grew up rooting for: The Roman Gabriel/Deacon Jones era.
ReplyDeleteNow all they need to do is throw some mud on there and we're good to go.
I guess if I wanted the real look of my youth I could watch on a black-and-white TV...
That's why I gave them a "B", they are not as poorly designed as the rollout of 2020. the gradients, the grey uniform the little patch on the front -- all of that is now gone. It was said in 2020 that those things were bad and finally Rams got rid of them. These are as you say, at least decently designed. The horn is still a problem -- no curl creates a "C" of negative space. Not appealing.
DeleteBut I agree to an extent, I don't give these an "A" but they okay. Biggest issues is if they wear all white socks with the 1960s throwbacks. Blue would be better, but the white plaque that is going on will eventually die out and teams will go back to looking balanced, with good contrasts
It's mostly about design when it comes to uniforms for me. Color theory, contrast, balance, and then features. It is worth noting that many of the Nike uniforms have been dumped for more traditional looks (like with these and the chances to the primaries) Browns, Bucs, Jaguars and others tried the pure modern looks and they changed back to more traditional looks as soon as they could.
The best things teams have done are sans Nike ... like the Chargers, they used their control to do a modern version of the traditional uniforms. The best of both schools of thought. And finally, the Rams joined it with decent execution, but not great, IMO
You do understand all this uniform nonsense is informed by when you grew up, right? Pining for the Deacon Jones or Jack Youngblood era unis? You forget the old timers then hated those uniforms as much as we hate the new ones now.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, there’s no accounting for taste.
Generally speaking, yup... I agree.
DeleteBut outright horrible design and color (mis-) matching are tasteless no matter your personal preferences.