By Phil Hecken, with Rick Pearson and Mike Engle
OK. Today we’re onto the American League powder blue review. Lots to get to today. If you missed the senior circuit’s review, click here.
Chicago White Sox: The Pale Hose actually wore three separate and distinct sets of blue uniforms (four, if you want to believe Ricko). The first two, however, were quite similar, worn from 1964 through 1968. For the first three years, they sported a block “CHICAGO” in vertically arched black lettering across their chest, and for the final two years, a script “Chicago” in blue with “White Sox” spelled out in the tail under Chicago. Caps were black for three years, blue in the final two, and the stirrups changed slightly. In addition, the 1967-’68 set had uniform numbers on the front, while the earlier set had TV numbers. The third set of blue uniforms were worn from 1971 through 1975 and were actually quite similar to their 1967-68 predecessors in that they basically replaced the blue with red (but returned to TV numbers). All piping and stirrups, plus the cap, which had been blue before, were red (mirroring the red of the home uniforms of this period). Bonus question: Was this uniform, worn in 1969 an 1970, powder blue? It’s a question that has been posed on the boards before but has never been sufficiently solved — if it were blue, it’s a VERY light shade of blue. What do you think?
RP: So I’ll begin with the 1964-66 White Sox. They were seen as “interesting” and a “typical Bill Veeck gimmick” by most, but in truth they looked pretty good. Better after the switch from black hats, etc., to navy, especially the ’67-68 version. Now, as to the “red hat” era that began in ’71, I realize the jury is pretty much split, but I liked them. That may be prejudiced some by the fact that I always liked Dick Allen and Jay Johnstone, and they both wore that uni (also both wore the Phillies powder blues) and by the fact then when they were introduced, red adidas came as part of the package. Colored cleats had arrived in MLB. Grade: B
ME: The White Sox, in general, get the Powder Blue for Powder Blue’s Sake award. The first powder blues, the block Chicago and especially the script Chicago with WHITE SOX in the tail, looked really good, but would have looked equally good on gray bases. And those socks”¦wow. I don’t want to say anything good about them, because Mr. Lukas could do that for me, more lustily. If the South Side Blues ended here, they’d get Grade: B+. But then along came those godforsaken bright red Frankenjerseys on the powder blue. Yikes, that’s REALLY hurting my eyes. Since the Sox went through so many identity crises before my lifetime, I’ll give this a “temporary insanity” mulligan and save it from the city cellar (and, by result, the big league cellar). Grade: D+
PH: Count me as among those who particularly liked the early powder blues (especially when the script Chicago was introduced), since, well, it’s blue on blue. It’s not too obnoxious deep a powder blue (since it’s either cotton or wool flannel, and not polyester), but it’s blue alright. I need to give out two separate grades once again, and the 1960’s blue gets a nice solid mark. Grade: B+ Once the Sox went to the red on blue, however, it instantly became a nightmare. Much like the Cardinals and Phillies, the powder blue doesn’t ‘react’ well with the red. Maybe because it’s not a dark blue, or maybe because the solid red on the pastel offends my sensibilities, the look was … just … not … good. With the red on blue — Grade: D
Kansas City Royals: One of the “longest tenured” powder blue-wearing teams, Kansas City also had two distinct “phases” of their uniform: From 1973 through 1982 the Royals sported a block “KANSAS CITY” in vertically arched lettering across their chest. A knit pullover jersey and sansabelt pants, these uniforms featured thin blue and white piping on the sleeves, and thicker blue and white stretch material at the waist, with blue stirrups and undersleeves. From 1983 through 1991 the Royals sported a script white “Royals” across their chest, minimal sleeve striping (also blue and white), dropping the sansabelt & pullovers for botton down jerseys and belts. Blue shoes were worn with both uniform sets.
ME: The Royals look good in powder blue. That being said, one of the good-looking teams has to be overrated. Unfortunately, I give the “overrated” tag to Kansas City. (Rick and Phil, please don’t shoot me.) After four years of looking fine in gray, they made their blue debut with their vertically arched KANSAS CITY tops. This variation gets all of my little dislike for the Kansas City blue look. In all the pictures I’ve been able to find, the powder blue just looks too light. There is no contrast between the blue base and the white lettering, so it looks sort of half-baked to me, and it’s prone to the problems the Angels, Braves, and Rays have with their respective softball tops. That’s not good company. Add the fact that it’s a pullover, and this top looks too much like a basketball warm-up shirt. Grade: B- Those jerseys left a lot of room for improvement, and the Royals really nailed it with the button-down powders, as seen on Bo Jackson. That powder blue base really got richer, and hey, what do we have here? Why, it’s a team wordmark in white, and I can see it! It’s a great look, but it’s not my favorite. (That honor goes to the Phillies, as discussed yesterday.) However, it’s good enough for me to give it a Grade: A. And on a more-than-slightly related note, the Royals’ home alternate top (wouldn’t you know, it’s powder blue too) is the best “softball top” in the Majors today, and there is no argument on that one.
PH: Absolutely, positively, my favorite of the powder blues. Of course, royal blue (they’re the Royals, get it?) and powder blue, plus only white, are a great combination in my mind. Whether it was the original sansabelt poly-blends, or the later button down’s and belts, this was the perfect powder blue uniform. I don’t think they could have improved it even by adding a small royal blue outline around the white numbers and letters. It worked just fine without it, thank you very much. Best of the baby blues, baby. Grade: A+
RP: Ah, the Royals. For my money they got it right. I know some lament the white-only lettering but I gotta say, it looked SO cool in person. Just a gutsy move, trusting the new intensity of powder blue doubleknit compared to the preceding era of poly blends and flannel to make the white letter and numbers pop. Head-and-shoulders the best of all the powder blues. They used it only as a road color, meaning they treated the same as if were gray, and they did it beautifully. (Totally as an aside”¦ if the Royals had waited just two years longer to return to gray, or had George Brett retired two years earlier, he would likely have been the only post WWII Hall of Fame player to have played his entire career without ever wearing a gray uniform). Grade: A
Milwaukee Brewers: Moving along, the Brewers went through three or four phases of powder blue, the first was from 1970 through 1971, when they wore powder blues with yellow lettering “borrowed” from the Seattle Pilots (who moved to Milwaukee following their very short stint in Seattle). By 1972, they had adopted more of their “own” identity, keeping a blue-outlined yellow block “BREWERS” font from 1972 through 1977 (first with a blue cap and white sanitaries, followed by a two-tone yellow/gold cap and yellow sanitaries). Hammerin’ Hank wore this uniform set. Then, from 1978 through 1984, the Brewers adopted a script “Milwaukee,” in blue outlined in yellow gold, kept the two-tone cap, and returned to white sanitaries. Except for 1970-71, all of their uniform sets had blue shoes, sansabelts and pullovers. The 78-81 uniforms featured blue and gold piping down the pant legs, and an equal-width stretch belt and sleeve hem, also in blue and gold.
PH: Yet another uniset I really like. That’s because the ONLY color that goes with powder blue besides royal blue is yellow gold. Now, the Crew had the misfortune of spending not one, but two full seasons wearing the old Pilots uniforms (more on them later), both for their homes and their road uniforms (did they really “borrow” the two lower case “e’s” right from the Seattle unis?) Nevertheless, they were blessed with having good colors. I actually like their second generation uniforms (with blue cap and white sanis) the least, and despite the garish appearance of the yellow sani era, I prefer them the most. But they had their most success in the ball in glove, script Milwaukee era unis and those rank up there as well. Very good, but not great. Grade: B+
RP: The Brewers are an example of what just seems to be some kind of visual rule ”¦ powder blue works best in concert with royal blue better than with any other color. I guess we could call it “spectrumally sound” or something. Even the years when they farted around with yellow-gold sanitaries and yellow-gold softcaps (even yellow gold stripes on their adidas and Pumas) it just kinda worked. Grade: C
ME: They started off with the Seattle Pilots’ uniforms, obliterated some nice details, ended with Pilots’ skeletons with Brewers’ wordmarks, and passed themselves off as a different team. Grade: 0%, a symbolic measure for openly uni plagiarizing. The Brewers finally got their own uniforms with the vertically arched lettering “BREWERS” wordmark, which looks OK by itself, but the yellow cap panel is annoying and the yellow sanitaries show why they cannot go outside the Oakland Athletics’ clubhouse. Grade: B. But it gets better. From 1978 on, they lost the yellow sanitaries and got themselves a gorgeous script Milwaukee wordmark for their fronts. Add the ingenious logo (which took me a LONG time to see the MB inside the ball glove), and I’m ready to officially wash their hands of the old Seattle Pilots’ blood. Grade: A-, and only a stupid yellow front cap panel away from making it a Milwaukee/Kansas City coin flip for Best of the DH League.
Minnesota Twins: Interestingly enough, the Minnesota Twins wore powder blue for 14 years, from 1973 through 1986, and the uniform basically remained unchanged for all 14 years of use. Red letters and numbers (numbers and wordmark outlined in dark blue), dark blue cap, thick dark blue, thin white and thick blue stripes on the sleeve hems and sansabelts, and thin red, white and blue piping on the pant legs and dark blue stirrups. About the only thing that changed were their toppers. More on that below.
ME: I’ve seen a lot of hate for these uniforms, but I don’t think they’re that bad. I think the vertically arched lettering NOB’s are too big, and this helmet based on a non-existent hat (and check the coach in the background) is TERRIBLE. For God’s sake, color that T in TC navy! By itself, I see a pretty average looking powder blue uniform, but with the odd choices of accessories, Grade: C-, but I’d love to grade these higher just to applaud the lack of road pinstripes.
RP: Oh, ick, we have to talk about the Twins. Around here we’re subjected to this uni far longer than we wanted … For many of us that was anything longer than one game. Especially because the first year of Twins doubleknits the roads were gray, and they was gorgeous, one of the really classy first attempts and creating a doubleknit uni that looked good — and appropriate — on a major league team. But evidently they couldn’t stand looking good when tacky was possible, because switched the road ensemble to powder blue. Not coincidentally (in my opinion, anyway) that’s when the Twins entered their most prolonged period of suckiness. To make it worse, they then added that red crown hat—first at home then later, (for god’s sake, why?) on the road, too””and the descent toward looking like the team from “up dere at da Techncial College in Fulda” was complete. Plus, they wore three different batting helmets (yes, that’s Rod Carew with a mustache) with those blues and for those used to this, something about this (in gray OR powder) was just out of time, out of place and out of whack. Grade: F
PH: What can I say about the Twinkies that hasn’t already been said? Nothing. I don’t like ’em (red doesn’t go on powder blue). ‘Nuff said. Grade: C
Seattle Mariners: The second Seattle ballclub, although alphabetically, they come before the Pilots, the Seattle Mariners donned the powder blues from 1977 through 1984. While not all these years had identical jerseys (they were constantly futzing with the look from 1977 through 1980, starting with the white outline around “Seattle” and blue, gold and white sleeve and sansabelt piping, then adding gold-white-gold (with thin blue stripes) on the sleeve and belt, and a gold outline around the wordmark. (Cap looked like this from ’77-’80, and this from ’81-’84). From 1981-1984, they added thick royal and gold stripes down the arms and replicated that on the waist and pant legs (adding an additional blue band on the waist). They also added a second layer of blue around the gold (which surrounded the blue) in their wordmark.
RP: I liked the Mariners version with yellow-gold as the predominant color in the waistband. A different choice, and for that reason it worked. Kinda, anyway. Give ”˜em credit for trying something. Grade: D
ME: Wow, these Seattle Mariners are the powder blue problem children. They always seemed to have some problem with their look. One day, they had too many layers and borders in the wordmark; another day, it was too many stripes on the sleeves. But the pants take the “cake” with the wide Expos-esque stripes down the side, but featuring yellow instead of red. Yuck. The Mariners never got it right in powder blue, and not even Ken Griffey, Jr. could have made those uniforms look good. Grade: C-
PH: Another team ‘born’ in powder blues, I always liked the Mariners in their powder blue, and for the same reason as I like Milwaukee: the baby blue goes well with yellow/gold and royal blue. I definitely prefer the older version of the jersey, ya know, the one without the lame and unnecessary fat ass stripes, but at least the colors are still good. Nothing really special or horrible about the uni, but when I think of the original Mariners, I’ll always remember them in their powder blues & trident caps. Grade: B
Seattle Pilots: Ah yes, baseball’s one year wonders, the Seattle Pilots. In 1969, the Pilots donned these blue uniforms for road games. Nautically themed, the sleeves featured the stripes of a ship’s captain, four of them, with a ship’s wheel patch on the front. Yellow gold was the color of the letters (which were lower case) and numbers, outlined in dark blue. Shirts were button down. Pants had a thin stripe of yellow surrounded by two thinner stripes of blue. The famous cap contained the “scrambled eggs” design.
PH: It’s a shame the Pilots only lasted one year, as I really liked their uniforms. The blue was not too powdery (because it wasn’t on a polyester blend, I don’t think), and the shirts were button down. The yellow nicely complimented the powder and royal. The ship captain’s stripes were a great element. About the only complaint I even have is I was not a fan of the scrambled eggs on the cap, since, while I “get” why they were there, I found superfluous and cluttersome. But it was unique, both then and now, so that keeps the grade high. Grade: B+
ME: Most underrated powder blue. Easy to underrate them because they only lasted a year, but they looked really good. The sky blue works for the pilots because pilots fly planes … in the sky … which is usually blue. The sleeve stripes, sock stripes, and the hat stripe (and eggs) made everything look cohesive with the yellow type. The whole uniform’s a bit avant-garde and possibly over-designed, but it’s really well put together. I like the look. Grade: A-
RP: One-year wonderful, those PILOTS. Some much going on: more-than-usual sleeve and sock striping, scrambled eggs, logo and caps-lower-case lettering/number in yellow-gold. They tried everything ”¦ and damned if it didn’t work. The wanted a maritime version of a baseball uniform and they got it. Oh, sure, maybe if the team had lasted, in another year or two they’d have scrapped some of the brick-a-brack (sic) cuz if might have gotten old. But as MLB’s ultimate one-off team … perfect. Grade: B+
Texas Rangers: Winding down now, the Texas Rangers wore powder blue from 1976 through 1982, keeping the same basic design throughout, the sole exception being 1977, when they wore a black memorial band and a “4” (here’s another view). The uniform was basic, with “TexaS” spelled out in vertically arched red lettering (with white outline), along with thick red, white and blue stripes on the jersey hem, waist, and down the pants legs. Jersey was pullover, with two-buttons at the top. When the hell did they wear this jersey with the capital letters tho?
RP: Oh, yeah the Rangers wore powder blue, too, didn’t they. Stripe on the pants sure was nice and wide, huh. Remember seeing them playing the Tigers on TV on a Saturday game of the week in Detroit (mid ”˜70s, sometime) wearing white pants with their powder jerseys. That was, well ”¦ goofy. Next patient, nurse. Grade: D
PH: One word: meh. Red doesn’t belong on powder blue. Fat stripes are ridiculous (at least they didn’t put them down the shoulders and from the armpit to the waist). I’m not a fan, at all, of the two-tone cap, although I don’t mind the font — kind of ‘old Texasy’. But, really, this uniform is “FAIL”. So that’s what they get. Grade: F
ME: It’s not a problem with the powder blue, it’s that front font. Just doesn’t look like a major league team to me. And the Henley tops”¦ugh. Grade: B for AAA ball, but D+ on the Major League level.
Toronto Blue Jays: Our study on powder blue concludes with the second Canadian team to sport the colors, and the Jays wore blue for a fairly long time. From their inception in 1977 through 1978, the Jays jerseys said “TORONTO” across the front, and in 1977 this was solid blue, while in 1978, a white outline was added. From 1979 through 1988, and the wordmark was changed to “BLUE JAYS.” Jerseys were always pullover, and the colors were always navy blue and white, appearing in thick stripes around the waist and thinner stripes on the sleeves. The same striping pattern which appeared on the sleeves was repeated on the pant legs.
PH: Like the Royals, who got it right by using their namesake color in their name, so too did the Blue Jays. I was more of a fan of the second generation of jerseys, the ones with BLUE JAYS and the bird & ball logo, but I liked both versions. And while I was never a fan of the font, it was one of the more unique and easily identifiable of all sports fonts (at least for the sport of baseball). Born blue, they remained blue until 1988. That’s a long time, and that’s how I’ll always remember them. Not necessarily fondly, but well enough. Grade: B
ME: Yeah, I guess Blue Jays should be blue. (Definitely not black, cough-cough.) And for whatever it’s worth, this pullover top makes the best t-shirt of this bunch. My favorite thing about those uniforms is the font. It’s a complement to the old graphic identity that I think electric stovetops look like the Blue Jays, and not the Blue Jays look like electric stovetops. It’s obvious that changes were made throughout the Blue Jays’ blue run, and I should have an opinion as to whether they look better with TORONTO or BLUE JAYS on the front. But the changes are too hard to see, so I don’t think I have a definite opinion either way. The white front panel is OK; the chest logo is less OK, and even less OK when the buttons pushed the logo off to the side. Grade: B (with a reduction down to B- with the non-centered chest logo)
RP: Loved the BLUE JAYS road. So “70s” and so appropriate to the team nickname. Always wished the home trim (sleeve ends, waist and pant stripes) had been royal-powder-royal, though. The extra “weight” would have been good. So much white was a little “fey” for a bird as ballsy as a blue jay. Uncle Charley has spoken. Grade: C
Phew … well, there you have it. Day 2 of the powder review. What do you think? Did we hit one out of the park or take a third strike looking? Feel free to let us know how we did, and what YOU thought about the time when men were men, and players wore pastels.
OK…that’s all for today. My great thanks to Mike and Ricko for providing me with a three generational perspective on the powder blue. Hope you enjoyed it.
Yesterday, I know the draft went on (and continues today), there was a bunch of uni news too (like the Pods throwbacks), and as many (or most) of you probably know by now, the San Francisco 49ers introduced new uniforms. Paul will have his full review of those this week, plus a very full ticker on Monday, I’m sure. Happy 39th birthday Robert Marshall!
Everyone enjoy your Sunday.
I know it’s sloppy, and most people don’t like it… but don’t the Brewers look like they are having a ball out there? I can’t believe it, but I really think this brings the team together.
link
I thoroughly enjoyed the retrospective over the past couple of days and appreciate all the hard work that went into it. My personal fave is the Royals powder blue because it was a natural fit with the team identity and looked great with the white lettering, plus I was a big George Brett fan.
Ricko, I believe the Lloyd Moseby shot included in your Blue Jays critique was a darker blue, maybe a BP jersey. Here’s a shot of the powder blue on Dave Stieb…
link
Also, although there is no real evidence of it, I saw the Reds play at Candlestick in about ’76. My memory says that there was a subtle blue tint to their roadies.
Here’s a shot of Bench that isn’t really conclusive, but to me looks a tad bluer than the grays worn today. Discuss.
link
Personally I love the White Sox red on powder blue. One of my all time favorites.
The Seattle Pilots were ‘Nautically themed’?? Seattle, the home of Boeing (at the time), with the name ‘Pilots’, with the little wings on the baseball on the logo? I always thought their unis were aeronautically themed. I got the impression they were going for an ‘airline pilot’ look. Hence, the name Pilots.
For the life of me, I’ve never understood why people liked the visual smorgasbord that was the Milwaukee Brewers’ uniforms in the mid-80’s. Pinstripes on the home unis, a completely different design on the road which only had the colors in common, and the piece-de-resistance, the dreaded panel cap. I see the writers here (and in other places as well) heap all sorts of scorn on unis which (by double-knit and by default mostly ugly standards) weren’t that bad- like Texas’ relatively straightforward attempt- and gush about the trainwreck that was the Brewers…I don’t get it. Probably never will.
But then again, what do I know? I liked the 1976-1981 White Sox unis.
[quote comment=”326142″]The Seattle Pilots were ‘Nautically themed’?? Seattle, the home of Boeing (at the time), with the name ‘Pilots’, with the little wings on the baseball on the logo? I always thought their unis were aeronautically themed. I got the impression they were going for an ‘airline pilot’ look. Hence, the name Pilots.[/quote]
Can’t add much to that but “+1”. He’s right. The unis were for airline captains.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the cheesy (appropriate for Wisconsin, but I don’t think that’s what they had in mind) and obvious “ball-in-glove and oh- hey, it’s got an MB in it! Kewl!” logo. Ugh.
While the Seattle Pilots seem to have a connection with airplanes-Boeing being a major company there-the original name ‘Pilots” was based on the nautical theme of a sea pilot or captain. The ship’s wheel with the wings and the “scrambled eggs”
on the brim all represented naval themes.
[quote comment=”326144″][quote comment=”326142″]The Seattle Pilots were ‘Nautically themed’?? Seattle, the home of Boeing (at the time), with the name ‘Pilots’, with the little wings on the baseball on the logo? I always thought their unis were aeronautically themed. I got the impression they were going for an ‘airline pilot’ look. Hence, the name Pilots.[/quote]
Can’t add much to that but “+1”. He’s right. The unis were for airline captains.[/quote]
Pilots were marine pilots. Check out the ship steering wheel (likely not the tech term) in the graphic here:
link
or in their logo:
link
Didn\’t Paul do a feature on the Pilots and their scrambled eggs motif?
[quote]What do you think? Did we hit one out of the park or take a third strike looking?[/quote]
Touch ’em all, fellas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My two faves are definitely the White Sox’ red-capped version and the Brewers’ script Milwaukee.
I don’t know what it is about those Sox unis that really work for me, because they really shouldn’t. Maybe it’s because I know a couple people who’ve got Mitchell & Ness throwbacks (one’s a Dick Allen and the other’s a Wilbur Wood [is he the last pitcher to win and lose at least 20 games in a season?]) and I think they look really good in person.
I dunno. I’m just slightly too young to have vivid memories of the uni set. Maybe I wouldn’t like to see them 81 times a year — kinda like the Bears’ orange jerseys. I like them as a one-off, but I would not want to see them on the field more than once a season.
Now the script Milwaukee: I loved that jersey so much that I bought a replica when I was about 12 or so. It was the old cheapie style Sand-Knit with screened-on wordmark. My jersey accidentally got dry cleaned and the screen printing lost all its flexibility and became brittle. I was so pissed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Happy birthday, rpm.
The Pilots: I see it as a nautical/aviation “mash-up” (wings on the ship’s wheel) kind of like the Indiana Pacers are supposed to represent both harness racing and auto racing.
And is it just me or does it seem like a disproportionate number of those pictures were taken at Comiskey Park?
Usain Bolt threw out the first pitch at Fenway Park yesterday wearing this: link
So I’ve learned two things today:
1) I’m not the only person who doesn’t care for the old Brewers “ball in glove” logo (it only has 4 fingers; and that bugs me); but possibly the only one in Wisconsin; and
2) I’m apparently one of the few who witnessed 70s and 80s baseball who CAN’T STAND powder blue uniforms (aside from the Expos; somehow it worked for them).
Agree with Mr. Bacardi – the Brewers were a team you wanted to like, especially in the fun “Harvey’s Wallbangers” phase, but those ’78 till whenever unis were cringe-worthy. Despite having good colors the Brewers have never had a good uni set. They’re uni-challenged, sort of like the Padres (although there are good things about SD’s current set). I’ll take the Pilot carry-overs over anything that followed.
The Rangers TEXAS powder blue was a one year style, 1975.
The Blue Jays did not wear powder blues after the 1988 season, they went to button up grays. 1989 brought new uniforms and a move to SkyDome.
I like those Padres unis. Where did those come from? Anyone have a full shot?
Draft related post ahead:
did anyone notice that when they showed Brian Hoyer the QB from Michigan State watching the draft proceedings, that he was wearing a white t-shirt with REEBOK log on the front. and when he saw himself on TV, he noticed it was wrinkled a way that made the logo less readable. So he took his arm from around his wife/girlfriend and sat up, straightening the logo… sheesh! the kid wasn’t even drafted yet, but reebok has him in their logo-encrusted pocket.
Another terrific, comprehensive post, gentlemen. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
My observations:
– I vote powder blue for the early Sox jerseys. And a good look, I might add. Though I mocked them at the time, I really appreciate the white stirrups and blue sanitaries, now. The two sets of thin-thick-thin stripes were terrific.
– My favorite of the era was, of course, the Royals, and in particular the white Royals with belted trousers. It remains the standard by which all other powder blues are measured. Saying that, I can take or leave the current Sunday powder blue alt. (An aside with the current version of Royals options: Great look, great fit. No baggy stuff that I can see. The organization looks like it’s on top of things.)
– I don’t find the red trim on the White Sox uniforms all that garish, and certainly not worth an F grade. I liked them then and I like them now. Richie Allen looked like he was born to wear red. Bonus points for the Sox logo on the stirrups.
– I agree that the Pilots’ uniforms don’t get the appreciation they deserve. Yellow trimmed in royal on powder blue is a great look. I’m thinking, though, it looks better because it’s flannel and not the polyester. I was never a ballplayer (certainly not in the polyester era) and still wonder if the polyester really is that much more comfortable than the light flannel? I’m thinking not. I’m also thinking polyester wouldn’t wrinkle like flannel. Is this where vanity really started?
– Mariners: Meh. For some reason it looked as though they were trying too hard, even though the uniforms were far simpler than the pilots.
– For me, the Brewers were just the opposite. They didn’t try hard enough. I like their look today. I got ball-in-the-mitt, but it looked so unprofessional. Of the powder blue era, the “Milwaukee” script easily was the best. And count me in the group that never did like the trucker cap style. The yellow sanitaries? No thanks. I cringe when I think that Hammerin’ Hank had to endure them and all the cartoon Braves stuff. He deserved better. (Like the Milwaukee Braves uni he started with.))
– The Rangers and their thick football-type stripes were the worst of the era.
– Never could get used to the Twins’ look, although the examples posted here don’t look as bad as I remember.
– Finally, the Blue Jays: A good look then, the throwbacks now just look trashy because they’re so baggy. They should scrap the thowbacks and let us remember fondly when uniforms fit better.
– A last word: With a red face, I humbly admit I, too, thought it was Lil Phil until yesterday. Please pardon me.
And, again, great work guys; further proof this truly is a great site.
There’s been a lot of mention of the Brewers’ road unis and the (love ’em or hate ’em) yellow panel cap, but their batting helmets had a white panel. These white-paneled helmets were worn both home and away. Interesting. They had a home cap, away cap, and batting helment that didn’t match either.
The day one draft report card on NBC Sports has a white Houston Texans helmet…
link
The overview of both leagues in the ’70s reminded me of something I noticed back in those days: National League teams were about twice as likely to have numbers on the front or sleeve of their jerseys as AL teams. Check out 1979 in Dressed To The Nines – it’s every NL team but St. Louis, which put numbers on the sleeves a few years later. Many years only 5 AL teams had front numbers, even when it was a 14 team league.
I would say that it was because the NL was more conservative, but you can’t get more conservative than the Yankees, Red Sox and Tigers, who kept numbers off the front.
The white paneled Twins helmet (respectfully[?] worn by Mauer and Redmond today) was truly bad. Almost–almost– as bad as the sleep-inducing thing that was introduced as their new logo in 1987.
thanks phil & jth(i need that brew label, so i can figure things out)
———-
great work gentleman!
—————
phil, it is almost comical how two people who agree soooo much on the finer points of uniforms can disagree so much on how teams execute those finer points. it is one of the things i love about this site. you asked me to respond, so i will, and since it is my birthday, we don’t have subjective differences, i am right;)
the junior circuit blues are far superior across the board, only the 1st incarnation of the expos rock in the NL. although i do like the phila colours, and the cub pins.
the team across the street:
all the flannel era blue sox unis are an A, but when they use white as a colour and not just an accent it achieves best ever status, or at least up there. i love when the chicago is in white, they should use this effect today, A fipple plus. the reds, like the zipper, meh on the uni c-/d+
royals:
pullover era A. button downs B+. love the strokeless letters.
brew crew:
if i was grading a hat, the mb in yellow or white is an A, but this uniform, no matter which one is a D+/C-. yellow looks like crap next to columbia, same uni in grey, prolly a B. i want to like this, but can’t. i once saw gorman thomas in cleveland get thrown out by a leftfielder at 1st wearing this, i think an equal fail.
mariner:
no! yellow with blue, and awful unis too. not even making it grey would help, do like the hat though, so D-.
pilots:
flannel blue is a nice blue, but the uni, puh-lease. a pilot theme with a nautical wheel, yellow with columbia, wings, eggs, the font, bad stripes, uh, no no no. i can think of nothing nice to say, F.
twinks:
totally underrated, the twins should wear this era again, except of course, take out the columbia, and tighten the stripes. the columbia isn’t as successful paired with the red toque, but the tricolour that the base coaches wear now makes a great pair with this blue uni. w/ red hat C, w/ tri hat B-. in grey, with either hat B+/A-
rangers:
with the exception of the font, fail. have the rangers ever looked good? F
jays:
by far the best, the hat, the bird, the font, every version is an A+. i used the number font for the softball team last year. another wiffle ball team i liked to be…rance mullinicks, garth iorg, otto velez, alfredo griffin & ernie whitt, with jim clancy on the bump. ah the memories.
[quote comment=”326159″]The day one draft report card on NBC Sports has a white Houston Texans helmet…
link
They also have the old Falcons helmet
Re: HOFers not wearing grey – Schmidtty played 13 games in 1972 and 42 games in 1989, the only two years of his career in which the Phils wore grey away uniforms. Don’t know how many of those were away games, but in a 2400+ game career, he couldn’t have worn greys more than a few dozen times.
As a Padre fan for over 30 years, I really like the simplicity of the 1969 home/road uniforms, especially the letter fonts, the slight arch of the lettering, the slim gold striping around brown numbers and letters and on the sleeves, the sock stripes, and in watching the throwback game Sat. 4/25/09 vs. the Pirates, how they added the NOB. I have a “first-year” Mitchell & Ness ’69 road throwback which is also a beautiful, simple-design jersey, complete with the City of San Diego 200th year celebration patch. The introduction of brown and gold with the tan road jersey was a first for its time, and a continuation of a “new look” trend for many 1960’s expansion teams. As we all know, this particular expansion year -’69 – also saw “different looking” uniforms for new teams Seattle and Montreal. Problem is to these eyes at least, any time the Padres wear a throwback from that early era, they (I suppose New Era these days) never quite seem to get the “SD” lettering on the cap as it actually appeared on the various caps the team wore between ’69-’84. Close, but always off a little bit. I really wish they’d bring this original brown/gold look back full time, or at least bring back the look with the historical (PCL Padres) and ’91-’03 team colors of dark blue and orange instead of dark/light blue and sand.
Reds never had powder blue-strictly gray. It was either the time of day, film used, or something that did that. The cover of the World Series 1990 SI issue had Chris Sabo on it with the predictable “RED OCTOBER” headline- and you’d swear they were powder blue.
link
Man, I had totally forgotten about those Texas Rangers unis. They were never on t.v. in the New York tri-state area, I guess, in those days unless they were playing the Yankees. Anyway, I love the clunkiness of them. The 70’s wordmark. The big stripes. Beautiful. I think you guys are much too harsh with your grading. All these uniforms are gorgeous and I’m not just being nostalgic.
[quote comment=”326165″]As a Padre fan for over 30 years, I really like the simplicity of the 1969 home/road uniforms, especially the letter fonts, the slight arch of the lettering, the slim gold striping around brown numbers and letters and on the sleeves, the sock stripes, and in watching the throwback game Sat. 4/25/09 vs. the Pirates, how they added the NOB. I have a “first-year” Mitchell & Ness ’69 road throwback which is also a beautiful, simple-design jersey, complete with the City of San Diego 200th year celebration patch. The introduction of brown and gold with the tan road jersey was a first for its time, and a continuation of a “new look” trend for many 1960’s expansion teams. As we all know, this particular expansion year -’69 – also saw “different looking” uniforms for new teams Seattle and Montreal. Problem is to these eyes at least, any time the Padres wear a throwback from that early era, they (I suppose New Era these days) never quite seem to get the “SD” lettering on the cap as it actually appeared on the various caps the team wore between ’69-’84. Close, but always off a little bit. I really wish they’d bring this original brown/gold look back full time, or at least bring back the look with the historical (PCL Padres) and ’91-’03 team colors of dark blue and orange instead of dark/light blue and sand.[/quote]
The ’74-’77 Padres home uniforms are terrific. Great script across the chest. Cool color combination. I saw them wear those in a throwback game at Petco a couple years ago and was blown away by how good they look. People think of the yellow pajamas when you say 1970’s Padres, but the mid-decade unis were quite distinguished.
link
Battle of the state-ouline sleeve patches right now in Houston
Astros
link
vs. Brewers
link
How many other teams have used state outlines?
I can think of the Packers (briefly), the Golden State Warriors and I think this Coyotes patch is just a concept, but it looks damn good.
link
I had to laugh when I read today’s post and saw the White Sox’ first powder blues (64-66) described as having “black” caps, letters, etc. The whole color scheme changed in 64 to a dark, navy blue and they stuck with that thru 68.
link
link
Marc Okkonen got it right.
Really fun posts, though, today and yesterday on the powder blues.
[quote comment=”326169″]Battle of the state-ouline sleeve patches right now in Houston
Astros
link
vs. Brewers
link
How many other teams have used state outlines?
I can think of the Packers (briefly), the Golden State Warriors and I think this Coyotes patch is just a concept, but it looks damn good.
link
California Angels
Texas Rangers
Minnesota Twins
New Orleans Saints
New Jersey Nets (state outine in logo)
Dallas Stars
ESPN and Madden ’10 did mock-ups of the draft picks in their new unis. They didn’t get the Lions update quite right:
link: First of all, he will be wearing No. 9, not 7, at least according to the Lions website. The pants and helmet have the old striping, and it’s hard to tell, but I don’t think the helmet and scoreboard have the new logo.
link: Same problems, but you can see the new black stripe between the blue and white on the socks.
[quote comment=”326169″]Battle of the state-ouline sleeve patches right now in Houston
Astros
link
vs. Brewers
link
How many other teams have used state outlines?
I can think of the Packers (briefly), the Golden State Warriors and I think this Coyotes patch is just a concept, but it looks damn good.
link
link
link
link
link
link
It’s more common than you think. That’s just a sampling: I got tired of thinking about and hunting for other examples.
Screen grab request and/or notice to go picture hunting when galleries become available
Brian Scalabrine is slightly out of uniform in today’s game at Chicago. How? Headbands are optional, but are supposed to match among all players on a team who choose to wear one. Rajan Rondo and Paul Pierce have green headbands (Rondo has Jerry West upside-down, per his longstanding tradition), but Scalabrine has a white headband.
[quote comment=”326170″]I had to laugh when I read today’s post and saw the White Sox’ first powder blues (64-66) described as having “black” caps, letters, etc. The whole color scheme changed in 64 to a dark, navy blue and they stuck with that thru 68.
link
link
Marc Okkonen got it right.
Really fun posts, though, today and yesterday on the powder blues.[/quote]
Thanks for confirming that. I honestly wasn’t sure (and didn’t check Okkonen) whether the White Sox’ switch to navy accompanied the powder blues or followed it by a year. I didn’t get to as many games in ’64 (for various reasons) so I never was completely sure…and we know navy and black can look almost interchangeable in some photos.
—Ricko
The 1969-70 White Sox COULD be blue
link
But I THINK they are gray
link!!!_W0QQitemZ110378223561QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20090418?IMSfp=TL090418153004r19750
Diaz, the Pirates’ catcher this afternoon, is sporting his helmet with the flap forward:
link
One powder blue team you forgot: link.
[quote comment=”326174″]Screen grab request and/or notice to go picture hunting when galleries become available
Brian Scalabrine is slightly out of uniform in today’s game at Chicago. How? Headbands are optional, but are supposed to match among all players on a team who choose to wear one. Rajan Rondo and Paul Pierce have green headbands (Rondo has Jerry West upside-down, per his longstanding tradition), but Scalabrine has a white headband.[/quote]
Following up my own post.
Ideally, I’d have a picture of Scalabrine and his white headband alongside somebody in a green headband, but until then, this will have to do.
Eddie House: link
Paul Pierce: link
Rajan Rondo: link
Brian Scalabrine: link
[quote comment=”326178″]One powder blue team you forgot: link.[/quote]
We also forgot Team Hotdam from the whiffle-ball tournament. Sorry.
anyone DVR the caps game?
Back up goalie was wearing a Hershey Bears mask with his Capitals uni
[quote comment=”326181″]anyone DVR the caps game?
Back up goalie was wearing a Hershey Bears mask with his Capitals uni[/quote]
That’s par for Simeon Varlamov’s course. It’s half Hershey Bears, half Washington Capitals. One mask to half-match all year. (He had been back and forth between those two teams.)
very funny headline regarding the Lions new logo/uniforms.
link
[quote comment=”326182″][quote comment=”326181″]anyone DVR the caps game?
Back up goalie was wearing a Hershey Bears mask with his Capitals uni[/quote]
That’s par for Simeon Varlamov’s course. It’s half Hershey Bears, half Washington Capitals. One mask to half-match all year. (He had been back and forth between those two teams.)[/quote]
Michal Neuvirth has the opposite. He’s leading the Hershey Bears in the AHL right now.
Brewers’ jersey count as of 4/26
Home whites: 2-2
Road grays: 3-2
Home blue alts: 0-2
Road blue alts: 3-4
Pinstripe alts: 0-0
Check out 1979 in Dressed To The Nines – it’s every NL team but St. Louis, which put numbers on the sleeves a few years later.
The Cards took the numbers off the front of the jersey and numbered the sleeves in 1979. I remember reading that the equipment manager thought the number on the front detracted from the birds; apparently, that wasn’t a widely held opinion.
And since I didn’t say anything yesterday, I’ll mention that I preferred both the Phillies’ and Cardinals’ blues to the similar grays.
[quote comment=”326149″]The Pilots: I see it as a nautical/aviation “mash-up” (wings on the ship’s wheel) kind of like the Indiana Pacers are supposed to represent both harness racing and auto racing.
And is it just me or does it seem like a disproportionate number of those pictures were taken at Comiskey Park?[/quote]
The same reason a lot of player photos seem to be at Wrigley: a guy named George Brace, who lived in Chicago made his living taking players pictures in uniform, on the field, then selling the players 5x8s for fan mail purposes.
ok…couple things — two corrections…and i’ve learned a valuable lesson…
okkonen is good, but not infallible…texas definitely wore powder blue in 1975 (thanks to scott little for the screen grab)…here’s what dressed to the nines (aka marc okkonen) had … you tell me — does that look powder blue (1975) to you? my bad though; should have checked that better — from now on im using bill henderson’s invaluable guide
also (and i corrected this in the header) as a few have pointed out and as was relayed to me from terry proctor, the toronto blue jays wore gray in 1989 and 1990…yet, going by DTTN for 1989 & 1990, i’d swear those uniforms were blue — again, my bad for not having researched it better; okkonen’s efforts are tremendous, but they cannot always be counted upon as infallible
the hall of fame would do everyone a service if they were to use WRITTEN DESCRIPTIONS with the uniform database that i and countless others have come to depend upon
and while it would probably take an entire team of incredibly talented and anal folks to replicate okkonen’s work with descriptions, i’d sign on to that project if ever one were to undertake it
on another note, thanks to everyone who contributed (especially mike and ricko) or commented … i learned a LOT about the powder blues that i’d either never learned (like, texas and toronto’s use of blue during what year), or had forgotten
As a huge fan of Ball Four*, I have had Pilots caps for a long time – Its fun to wear to the ballpark, and see how many people recognize it….
* check out my UW membership card!
i don’t know if this was mentioned, but when Brian Orakpo received his Redskins jersey yesterday, his name was on it. I’m pretty sure this rarely happens outside number one picks. Thought it was interesting that they would have his jersey on hand.
oh…and on a completely unrelated note
im starting the jerry manuel death watch now … and mr. beltran…i didn’t know you had a bet with charlie samuels that he wouldn’t have to launder your uni this year
/ollie must go…send him down to chien ming wang school or something — good decision omar, not to pursue derek lowe or manny…fuckin’ brilliant…you’re on the death watch too
//done
Speaking of Cardinal numbers on their sleeves: link
Speaking of cool socks: link
Arizona just drafted another hyphenated guy, LaRod Stephens-Howling. 1 letter shy of Rodgers-Cromartie, but still a whole mess of letters/characters on a jersey.
Ghaah…. Marc Okkonen was wrong about something? Ahhhh!
(I remember a girlfriend discovering my copy of DTTN – “You BOUGHT this?”
[quote comment=”326192″]Speaking of Cardinal numbers on their sleeves: link
Speaking of cool socks: link[/quote]
I like the piping on the caps, too.
link
(ahh….much better)
hm, life photos of the cubs have to be 1957, but…
link
wow that was a lot of work done by Ricko, Mike and Phil. It was fun to look back at some of the uniforms that I may have forgotten about. it also is fun to open a link and see a baseball card from my youth. To see what the uniform looked like.
Funt topic and great work guys.
[quote comment=”326198″]wow that was a lot of work done by Ricko, Mike and Phil. It was fun to look back at some of the uniforms that I may have forgotten about. it also is fun to open a link and see a baseball card from my youth. To see what the uniform looked like.
Funt topic and great work guys.[/quote]
thanks larry
this one took me prolly 10-12 hours, in total, to put together (over the course of the two days)…labor of love but dammit im pissed about the texas texases and the blue jays grays
[quote comment=”326171″][quote comment=”326169″]Battle of the state-ouline sleeve patches right now in Houston
Astros
link
vs. Brewers
link
How many other teams have used state outlines?
I can think of the Packers (briefly), the Golden State Warriors and I think this Coyotes patch is just a concept, but it looks damn good.
link
California Angels
Texas Rangers
Minnesota Twins
New Orleans Saints
New Jersey Nets (state outine in logo)
Dallas Stars[/quote]
New York Islanders have an outline of Long Island.
[quote comment=”326176″]The 1969-70 White Sox COULD be blue
link
But I THINK they are gray
link!!!_W0QQitemZ110378223561QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20090418?IMSfp=TL090418153004r19750[/quote]
That’s what I’ve been saying:
1969…Royal hats, sleeves, et al, with powder blue.
1970…Navy hats, sleeves, et al, with gray.
I just don’t see any way McCraw’s hat or sleeves on that card are royal, esp. when compared to the navy gear of the baserunner (an Indian or a Yankee at Shea based on the unis of 1970). Royal can look like navy sometimes, yes, but not when it’s RIGHT NEXT TO navy.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”326200″][quote comment=”326171″][quote comment=”326169″]Battle of the state-ouline sleeve patches right now in Houston
Astros
link
vs. Brewers
link
How many other teams have used state outlines?
I can think of the Packers (briefly), the Golden State Warriors and I think this Coyotes patch is just a concept, but it looks damn good.
link
California Angels
Texas Rangers
Minnesota Twins
New Orleans Saints
New Jersey Nets (state outine in logo)
Dallas Stars[/quote]
New York Islanders have an outline of Long Island.[/quote]
Tampa Bay Lightning
link
[quote comment=”326196″]link
(link)[/quote]
*sniff* …beauty. Loved those caps!!!
My hat is still tipped in honor of you gentlemen. Fine fine fine job!
Don’t care much for Rangers, Twins, and the Mariners’ powder blues.
Those Pilots’ unis were magnificent!! Brewers looked SHARP! Love the blue and yellow Puma cleats. I may have to disagree a bit on the White Sox red & powder blues. I think they sort of worked in a strange and unique way.
[quote comment=”326202″][quote comment=”326200″][quote comment=”326171″][quote comment=”326169″]Battle of the state-ouline sleeve patches right now in Houston
Astros
link
vs. Brewers
link
How many other teams have used state outlines?
I can think of the Packers (briefly), the Golden State Warriors and I think this Coyotes patch is just a concept, but it looks damn good.
link
California Angels
Texas Rangers
Minnesota Twins
New Orleans Saints
New Jersey Nets (state outine in logo)
Dallas Stars[/quote]
New York Islanders have an outline of Long Island.[/quote]
Tampa Bay Lightning
link
Lexington Legends, too, using the state of Kentucky as the base of the “L” on its caps and other apparel:
link
[quote comment=”326172″]ESPN and Madden ’10 did mock-ups of the draft picks in their new unis. They didn’t get the Lions update quite right:
link: First of all, he will be wearing No. 9, not 7, at least according to the Lions website. The pants and helmet have the
old striping, and it’s hard to tell, but I don’t think the helmet and
scoreboard have the new logo.
What is the URL of the site? I would love looking at the other mock ups
link: Same problems, but you can see the new black stripe between the blue and white on the socks.[/quote]
[quote comment=”326206″][quote comment=”326172″]ESPN and Madden ’10 did mock-ups of the draft picks in their new unis. They didn’t get the Lions update quite right:
link: First of all, he will be wearing No. 9, not 7, at least according to the Lions website. The pants and helmet have the
old striping, and it’s hard to tell, but I don’t think the helmet and
scoreboard have the new logo.
What is the URL of the site? I would love looking at the other mock ups
link: Same problems, but you can see the new black stripe between the blue and white on the socks.[/quote][/quote]
They just use the old college numbers. I remember last year’s edition, the Madden mock-ups gave Buffalo Bill Marshawn Lynch #10 (his Cal number) even though NFLShop.com had #23 as his official jersey number at least a day earlier.
[quote comment=”326200″][quote comment=”326171″][quote comment=”326169″]Battle of the state-ouline sleeve patches right now in Houston
Astros
link
vs. Brewers
link
How many other teams have used state outlines?
I can think of the Packers (briefly), the Golden State Warriors and I think this Coyotes patch is just a concept, but it looks damn good.
link
California Angels
Texas Rangers
Minnesota Twins
New Orleans Saints
New Jersey Nets (state outine in logo)
Dallas Stars[/quote]
New York Islanders have an outline of Long Island.[/quote]
Phil! Another Long Island separatist! Red, blue states, D.C. and Long Island. Cool.
—Ricko
anyone else notice Melkey Cabrera from the yankees uses a grip on his bat handle? I’ve never seen anyone use this…
link
[quote comment=”326206″]What is the URL of the site? I would love looking at the other mock ups[/quote]
are you talking about the espn site or madden?
[quote comment=”326151″]So I’ve learned two things today:
1) I’m not the only person who doesn’t care for the old Brewers “ball in glove” logo (it only has 4 fingers; and that bugs me); but possibly the only one in Wisconsin; and
[/quote]
I am in 100% agreement with you. I don’t like it either.
But with the disproportionate number of people that do like it, it made no sense to say anything about it until now.
I would like to amplify the boys work on the Royals PB’s. Phil is correct; especially in the early years (and at least in the NY papers) someone didn’t know how to photograph/process the white numbers on the PB’s. Players often looked like a link (that’s actually Gene Garber with his back to the camera). I was told (in 1973) by a member of the club that the numbers were white because it would show better on TV.
Every decent picture from the early/mid 1970’s the blue was a link. By link (that’s an ‘82), it had definitely darkened and they look even better with the white numbers (Ricko described them as “popping”) which they finally did.
One feature I did not like about link was the use of the blue/white/blue sleeve striping. I would have much preferred a link only (a la Cincinnati Reds). It would have been consistent with the striping from the 1969-72 period. One other oddity was the use of a single blue vertical pant stripe on the home whites but, it never made it to the roads (until the return of the gray’s in 1992). A very narrow blue/white/blue stripe (a la Toronto Blue Jays) would have worked for both home and road pants.
For my money the best all around uniform they had was the link. After ’85, they significantly narrowed the sleeve striping. The uniforms were still being made by Wilson (unquestionably the best at uniform cuts, name lettering, etc.). Yes, link the style did not change, but that was the first year of Rawlings being the official supplier of MLB uniforms (not everyone took up their offer of free uniform sets) and that was a pox on baseball that it never recovered from. Lettering, fit were terrible. So much so that the Royals players begged to have Wilson uniforms in 1989, and they got a road set for the second half of the season.
I guess the only thing I might have done differently is the photo of Bo from 1990. Those uniforms sucked and without getting in a big exchange of photos, the Rawlings uniforms actually raised a shade from the last year that Wilson was doing them.
BTW, if you wonder what the PB’s would have looked like with a blue outline, there is currently what appears to be a prototype on ebay: link
Loved all the powder blue goodness over the weekend. One last point to ponder, did anyone besides the M’s feature a powder blue fence?
link
[quote comment=”326213″]Loved all the powder blue goodness over the weekend. One last point to ponder, did anyone besides the M’s feature a powder blue fence?
link
Dodger Stadium had powder blue walls in the 70’s/80’s
link
Great work this weekend guys – as a fan of came of age watching baseball in the 1970s, this set of articles was great.
The Blue Jays went to the new uniform set (grey roads, buttondowns instead of pullovers) in 1989 because they wanted to introduce a new set of uniforms with the move from “temporary” Exhibition Stadium to Skydome.
But what’s funny is that they kept the white panel cap as a home cap until 1993.
Even though from 1989 through 1993 they had otherwise ditched the 1970s look, they kept the old hat as part of the set. I’m pretty sure they were the last team to wear the multicoloured crown. They abandoned the white panel cap in the middle of the 1993 season by concensus among the players.
[quote comment=”326216″]Great work this weekend guys – as a fan of came of age watching baseball in the 1970s, this set of articles was great.
The Blue Jays went to the new uniform set (grey roads, buttondowns instead of pullovers) in 1989 because they wanted to introduce a new set of uniforms with the move from “temporary” Exhibition Stadium to Skydome.
But what’s funny is that they kept the white panel cap as a home cap until 1993.
Even though from 1989 through 1993 they had otherwise ditched the 1970s look, they kept the old hat as part of the set. I’m pretty sure they were the last team to wear the multicoloured crown. They abandoned the white panel cap in the middle of the 1993 season by concensus among the players.[/quote]
Interesting… I knew the Jays players were still wearing the cap with the white panel in the All Star Game that year in Baltimore, but by World Series time it was gone. So it was the players that decided to abandon it?
Apparently this is the only place to comment on this fine Tuesday. Anyone out there?
boo
Phil!! Just trying an end-around. You caught me.
I’ll probably be around.
Slow day at the office.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”326514″]Phil!! Just trying an end-around. You caught me.[/quote]
no worries ;)
Need stirrups!
Just for the hell of it…Star Trek Night at the Giants game! Even now, Captain Kirk gets the green chick.
link
I’m always surprised by the hatred or otherwise general dislike of people for the Twins blue jerseys. Especially the hatred for the tri-color helmet. Maybe it was that I never cognitively saw them play in them (I live in St. Paul and was only 6 when the “M” came around), but today I have a helmet and a link replica in the blue.
Same sort of thing goes for the link they wear now. Yea, it’s a road jersey but I don’t think they’re awful. The arched nameplate is great, it’s simple and you always know it’s the Twins who’s playing your home squad.
While the link they’re wearing this season are delightful, and as noted I don’t mind the current road jerseys, a nod to the link wouldn’t be bad – maybe wear ’em when they play a historic Senators/Twins opponent on the road.
…oh, and don’t bring up the navy or link Twins jerseys.