Page 1 of 1
This is controversial, but it needs to be said
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:21 pm
by Doom
"Rose" is classified as a "shade of pink", the vestments are accurately described as "pink"
Re: This is controversial, but it needs to be said
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:49 pm
by peregrinator
Doom wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:21 pm
"Rose" is classified as a "shade of pink", the vestments are accurately described as "pink"
Well, rose isn't just a shade of pink but rose and pink do have overlapping shades. But there are some "rose" vestments that really aren't pink as we understand the word in English (but then neither Latin nor German distinguish):
https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2015 ... -and-pink/
Re: This is controversial, but it needs to be said
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2025 4:11 pm
by Doom
Well, it is a known fact that one's ability to determine the difference between shades of color is not universal. To a large degree, it is known that there is a significant population of the world who cannot tell the difference between green and blue, and I am not talking about people who are color blind. There are entire languages that do not have a word for "Blue." People who grow up speaking those languages can go their entire lives without ever being able to see the color blue.
It is known that women can discern more colors than men, which any man who has ever spent time at a paint store or looking at carpet or wallpaper samples with women already knows.
"Which looks better, white, off-white, or eggshell?"
To such questions, you had better not respond, "They all look the same to me," even if it is true.
This is a complicated way of saying that however, color snobs might define the alleged difference between "pink" and "rose" as, to everyone else, rose is just a darker shade of pink.
Re: This is controversial, but it needs to be said
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2025 5:29 pm
by peregrinator
I do think English differentiates between the two (but there are overlapping shades) - I think what most people think of as "rose" has a bit of blue or purple in it, while pink doesn't. So you have e.g. dusky rose, which isn't really pink; and "pepto-bismol pink" which isn't really rose (at least, most English speakers would say it isn't). But Latin doesn't distinguish between the two, so you have lots of shades of rosacea some of which I don't think an English speaker would call "pink" (not even "dark pink").
For example this is a rose vestment:
Honestly I don't think most English speakers would call this pink - or rose for that matter!
Here's another:

Re: This is controversial, but it needs to be said
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2025 5:30 pm
by peregrinator
All that said most of the "rose" vestments you will see in the USA on Laetare Sunday or Gaudete Sunday can definitely be described as pink.
Re: This is controversial, but it needs to be said
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2025 5:30 pm
by anawim
Women are far better at distinguishing subtle differences between shades than men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s33ScN4D-HU
Re: This is controversial, but it needs to be said
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2025 10:23 pm
by Obi-Wan Kenobi
peregrinator wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 5:30 pm
All that said most of the "rose" vestments you will see in the USA on Laetare Sunday or Gaudete Sunday can definitely be described as pink.
I have unquestionably pink vestments at one church and rosier ones at the other two.
The Mount got an
extremely pepto set while I was there. Extremely.
Re: This is controversial, but it needs to be said
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2025 7:09 am
by peregrinator
Our rose set is old (100+ years) and is definitely pink but with a slight orange cast (to my eyes at least). But we have a rose cope and matching altar frontal that are newer and fall into the dusky rose category.