The shading between the two patterns is different.  

LC Chart. Shad on the top, Norman Sexy Shad on the bottom.

Chart shad has a greyish/blue back, with just a hint of violet.  Barely comes off a straight line along the back.

Sexy Shad is blue back fading to grey, chart. line, orange belly.

Big difference to my eyes.

The shading between the two patterns is different.

Of course they are different but do you really think it will make a difference which one you use? No way!

Sure the sexy shad pattern looks nice to our human eyes. But hey, does someone know for sure whether bass (let alone fish) see shades of colors the way we do ?

I don't know.... And that's why I tend not to focus too much on colors. At least not on very subtil changes in colors.

For instance, I don't see a difference between a pearl white, a matt white, a NC Shell White ........ What could be "whiter" than White ?

my 2 cents

What could be "whiter" than White ?

my 2 cents

You ever seen the pic of Muddy's crack hanging out?

There's your answer...  

No offense to Muddy ! I don't know him personally.

I guess I should have my crack painted in Sexy Shad... that seems like the must-have color  :

I'm gonna side with Burley on this one and say that on certain fisheries, like Lake Lanier, that is gin clear and the main forage is the blue back herring, I think the Sexy Shad would work better than Chartreuse Shad.  

BassFishingMachine - You say that Green Gizzard and Ayu look the most natural, but is that what the fish think?  Also, have you ever picked up a live Gizzard Shad and looked at it's color?  I think the Sexy and Chartruse Shad are both excellent imitations of the gizzard shad.

i wonder how different they look 15 feet underwater???

jim

i wonder how different they look 15 feet underwater???

To a hungry bass they would look the same.