This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Oh Danny! Boy

danny's tweaks-header

By Phil Hecken

As you all know, I get a LOT of “Uniform Tweaks” (or “concepts” or “revisions” or what have you) sent my way, and I try to post every single one. In order to remain impartial, I never comment on them, but rather, leave it to you readers to do so. Many are absolutely outstanding, others are very good, and some…well, some aren’t all that great. But everyone who sends something in deserves a look see and I do my best to make sure they get their “15 minutes” on Uni Watch.

But every once in a while, I get a set of concepts that are so good, or so unique, or so outstanding that they really deserve their own “main” article. This is one of those times. I recently received a set of baseball uniform concepts from reader Danny Finocchio that really just struck a chord with me.

Most readers don’t hesitate to add commentary with their concepts, and when they do, I post it, unedited, for you. Danny’s submission was a little different.

Danny simply said, “Hi, my name is Danny Finocchio. I’m a recent graphic design graduate from Easton, PA. I’m an avid Uni-Watcher, and follower of your blog. With baseball season almost upon us, I wanted to send you some Uni-Tweaks I’ve done for MLB uniforms from across all era’s of the game. I’ve done seventeen in all so far, but this type of thing could go on forever, so I’ll definitely have more to come. I won’t get into describing them all, but I will say all the designs are based off of my love for simple, clean, traditional baseball uniform design.”

Then I opened Danny’s attachment, and I was pretty blown away.

Intrigued, I asked if he’d elaborate a bit more, on each uniform and how he came up with such a design, and to tell me a bit more about himself. So, with that, I’m pleased to present to you Danny Finocchio, uniform designer:

~~~

Uni Watch: Graphic Design graduate? That’s awesome — How old are you, where are you from, and where did you go to school?

Danny Finocchio: I’m 25, and a native of Easton, PA. I’m a recent Graphic Design graduate from Kutztown University (of PA).

UW: How did you get into uniforms and uni watching?

DF: I was formally introduced to Uni-Watching by my cousin, Matt Weidner, a few years back, but I’ve been a uni-watcher since I was a young child. As kids, my cousins, brother, and I would constantly be drawing our favorite athletes (sneakers, superheroes & pro wrestlers) and try to re-create their likeness and uniforms as best as we could. I guess that’s where it all started.

UW: Any specific sports? I know what you sent me are baseball uniforms, but have you designed anything else?

DF: I’m interested in uniform design across all sports, but my main interests are with baseball and international football (soccer). My motivation for doing these MLB Uni-Tweaks was for fun, but it’s something I always wanted to explore.

UW: Well that’s great, because with Spring Training underway, many of us are excited for the upcoming season. Any favorite team?

DF: I’m a die-hard Yankees fan, and lover of traditional baseball uniforms, but I always thought to myself “Why not put Yankees in script across the chest?” … “Why not put names on the back of a Yankees uniform?” These were the questions I wanted to answer for myself, and see what they looked like. This whole series of uniform concepts spawned from those initial questions, and I just kept going with it.

UW: NOB’s on the Yankees unis? That’s heresy, isn’t it? Anyway, can you tell me about this set of uniforms you sent me? I’ve seen lots of templates readers send in, but yours is pretty unique. Did you create it yourself?

DF: Through a little online research I found a template I liked. Then, I recreated it so I could manipulate it better. I also recreated all the pinstripes, swashes, and most of the logos in vector art. Once I had the uniform set the way I liked, I brought it into Photoshop to give it a “classic” look by laying the template over a piece of yellowed paper. Then I added a fabric texture to give the impression that the uniforms had a subtle wool look to them.

UW: That’s fantastic Danny. Let’s take a look at what you’ve created, along with your thoughts on each uniform.

~~~

1959 Kansas City Athletics: I wanted to re-create a few teams that don’t exist anymore. With my generation this team, affectionately known as the Yankees’ Minor League System in their day, isn’t even on the radar. I started by re-creating the “KC” logo and used their original color palette.

1953 St. Louis Browns: This concept is a mesh of a few of their uniform designs throughout their existence. Again, I started by re-creating the interlocking “STL” logo, and went on from there.

circa 1903 New York Highlanders: They are the last of my defunct teams. I wanted to honor the Yankees’ history by bringing the Highlanders back with this clean, traditional, no-frills design.

1919 Chicago White Sox: I’ve always loved the interlocking “SOX” logo, and I wanted to use that all over the concept. And at the same time, I wanted to answer the age-old question, “Why don’t they actually wear white sox?”

1908 Chicago Cubs: I’ve always loved the fact that the Cubs used that sky blue hue on their road set. I really wanted to bring that back.

circa 1905 Pittsburgh Pirates: I love the Pirates’ uniforms from across all era’s of their existence. I especially love when they their wear their classic uniform set. I wanted to create my own version of that.

1950 Philadelphia Phillies: I’ve never liked the Phillies uniforms. I really don’t like the stars over the “i’s”. So, with these I wanted to take it down a notch.

1946 Boston Red Sox: I hate them just as much as the next Yankee fan, but I can’t deny their uniforms…they’re beautiful. I loved the road set they wore in 2009, and I wanted to create my own version of that. I also wanted to put “Red Sox” in script to see how that looked. I also added a WWII patch on the right sleeve.

1962 NY Metropolitans: Why haven’t the Mets ever used their full name on their jerseys? This set looks different from what they wore then, but it also looks as if it could’ve been their uniform. That’s what I like about this set.

1967 Minnesota Twins: This set is one of my favorites from the series. They have a lot more little details compared to the others, but still have a simple and classic feel to them. And the colors just work well together.

1966 Baltimore Orioles: Another of my personal favorites. I’ve always loved the script “Baltimore” and the bigger numbers they wore on the backs. I also added one of their old logos as a patch on the left sleeve.

1983 Cincinnati Reds: I’ve always thought the Reds have had nice uni’s and I wanted to make my own version.

2003 Florida Marlins: I’ve always liked the Marlins color palette and logo. So, I wanted to create my own version of their set. I kept the pinstripes, but used their primary logo on the road set. I also added their 10th anniversary patch on their right sleeve.

2007 Tampa Bay Devil Rays: This set is a mesh of their new name, “Rays” and their old color palette. I chose to give then a classic feel over a contemporary feel. I also gave them pinstripes which look nice.

2010 Washington Nationals: Another of my favorites from the series. In this set I wanted to give them a feel of their predecessor, the Senators. I also added their logo patch on the right sleeve. I really love the way these turned out.

1937 NY Yankees: This is where it all started. I wanted to change the most iconic uniform in American sports. And I really like it. I also added a 1937 WS patch on the left sleeve and striped socks for the road set.

1929 NY Yankees: I created another version to explore using a block lettered “Yankees” on the road set.

~~~

Well, there we go. Awesome job on those Danny. While I personally would never add the NOB (even conceptually) to the Yankees, and I don’t wholeheartedly agree with a couple of the revisions, I believe this is an excellent example of “thinking out of the box” (which would explain why you have a degree in graphic design, and I don’t). I particularly enjoyed the “NY” on the Highlanders uniform, as that particular design was reminiscent of the Mets‘ 2009 “cream” uniform (and in which David Wright was beaned last season). Of course, that subsequently led to Wright’s donning a “Great Gazoo” helmet. So…my feelings are mixed on that particular graphic.

I really also enjoyed the socks you created for each uniform as well. Personally, I would have made them into stirrups with sanis, but that’s just me. Many of those would look really great on teams today, although, with the current low-pant style, we’d likely never see them.

Overall, though, just an outstanding job. Thanks for sharing those, and I look forward to seeing other creations from you in the future. What say you, Uni Watchers? Did Danny hit one out of the park?

~~~~~~~~~~

mea culpaAdd another mea culpa to the “NFL Uni Contest”. This time, it appears as though I omitted reader (and also former contest participant) Kevin Connolly from the show. It’s too late now to include him, as the finalists have been chosen, and will be given to the readers for a vote tomorrow. Doesn’t change the fact that I somehow missed his E-mail, out of the scores I received.

If Kevin’s tweak looks somewhat familiar, it should because he submitted it for a the “regular” uni tweaks back in December of 2009. And it was a really good one too.

Here’s his submission that he resubmitted to me just before the contest deadline, but somehow I missed. It was for the Patriots.

Back in December, here’s how Kevin described it:

Since the Patriots have been wearing their legacy uniforms, I have decided that I like more traditional Patriot look over the current uniform set. This was quite the revelation for me since I’m a big fan of contemporary uniform designs and pretty much love anything that Oregon does. I’ve attached my rendering of a concept uniform set which is a slight twist on the traditional shoulder stripes. At first, I wasn’t sure how much I’d like the look, but am pretty happy with the result. I’ve also included some player models displaying the uniform set. I’ll be interested to hear what people have to say.

Again, mea culpa, Kevin. I know that may not make you feel any better, but it was an honest eff-up on my part and I deeply apologize.

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: Back to a little baseball, now that the calendar is slowly edging toward that magical day that is “Opening Day” and all is right in the world again. Today’s scoreboard comes from none other than Lance Smith (aka “Squiddie”) and might be what we call a bit of foreshadowing. Ready? Guess The Game From the Scoreboard Date, location and final score, please, and be sure to link to your answer. And, as always, if you enjoy the game, please send me some new scoreboards! Drop me a line. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

uni template 2Back again with more Uniform Tweaks, Concepts and Revisions today. Taking a look at all sports from here on out, so, if you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

~~~

We begin today with Travis Knotts, who simply has a logo and helmet tweak for the Buffalo Bills:

Attached is my tweak to the Buffalo Bills primary logo and helmet. I wanted to make a logo that could satisfy the current logo’s detractors, while not being a drastic revamp. I’m not a Bills fan, but I think this concept is something Bills fans could take pride in. I mean, it even has a tail now!

– Travis

~~~

Next up is Joe Piperno, who has a whole mess of NFL changes:

I made 7 complete uniform change and added some alts
For the 49ers, i gave them the old uni with lighter colors and added a gold jersey

giants: added red to home. added blue to away and alt

patriots: I added red and made a red alt

bills: I found the 1961-64 unis and tweaked them. I also gave them a red alt and white streaking buffalo helmets

seahawks: Gave them white pants in the home and added a green throwback

Raiders: added silver to the home, added silver&black to the away and made a silver alt

Jaguars

Vikings: added yellow alt; Steelers:added yellow alt; Rams: added gold alt; Redskins: added yellow alt — set here

Packers: added yellow alt; Chargers: added yellow alt; Bucs: added pewter alt — set here

~~~

Our final tweak today comes from Logan Savage, who was admittedly late for the NFL jersey contest, but wanted to share his vision for the Saints:

Okay, so this is about 3 weeks late but I was surfing the web and came across a link to your blog and decided why not try my luck and send something in. Hopefully if this isn’t accepted as an entry, it is at least pleasing to the eye. The backstory is I had been wanting to use that font on a few other prototype I’ve made but it didn’t suit any of the teams so I finally thought of the Saints and it fit perfectly with the whole Mardi Gras thing and was an improvement on their old bland logotype. The uniform drew inspiration from a few college team unis, most notably Georgia Tech. I love the look of the college unis and thought the NFL could use an updated look since most real uniform updates haven’t been drastic over the years. Anyway, hopefully I’m given a chance although I completely understand since it is way overdue and I can’t wait until the next Design contest comes up. Thanks for your time.

~~~

That will do it for today’s tweaks. We’ll get to some of the other sports next time.

~~~~~~~~~~

And on that note, that’s all for today folks. Everyone have a great Saturday. Peace.

 

94 comments to Oh Danny! Boy

  • jesse | March 6, 2010 at 7:09 am |

    Danny, great job on the tweaks, especially the Nats. Nice work!

  • Harry | March 6, 2010 at 7:15 am |

    Nice work, Mr. Finocchio. Hopefully we’ll be seeing more of your portfolio.

  • Larry Kurtze | March 6, 2010 at 7:58 am |

    The scoreboard game is game 1 of the 1959 World Series. White Sox 11, Dodgers 1. 10/1/1959, Comiskey Park. Early Wynn got the win over Rodger Craig, “Big Klu” hit two home runs to spark the rout.

  • scott | March 6, 2010 at 8:32 am |

    Is the June 8, 1996 game at Tiger Stadium the last time the Yankees wore an alt uniform, aside from the various caps MLB has had teams wear on July 4, etc.?

  • Kurt Allen | March 6, 2010 at 9:04 am |

    Packers have officially ditched the gold-alts, even on a retail sale basis.

    I couldn’t get a screen shot, Coyotes trade Peter Mueller to the Avalanche the other day – they showed him in warm-ups with a blank jersey, no number or NOB – by game time he had his handle, and was given #88…

  • Chance Michaels | March 6, 2010 at 9:06 am |

    Cool stuff, Danny!

    Not that it matters for the sake of a design exercise, but the Mets *do* have their full names across their chests. They are
    not now, nor have they ever been, the “Metropolitans”.

  • Gerry | March 6, 2010 at 9:11 am |

    Danny absolutely hit it out. I also would have liked to see the stir ups. The Pirates uniform is beautiful especially the font.

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 9:25 am |

    Danny’s stuff is fun and imaginative—and certainly wonderfully stylized—but why do they all have soccer socks?

    Dark-full-socks-with-stripes have never been a baseball style. Ever. As baseball followers here know, the dark-colored socks reaching the shoe seen in old-time photos actually were a stirrup sock with a white undersock of some kind (quite often the lower part–the actual stirrup itself–was white, too, even into the 1940’s). By the “teens” of the 20th century the white sanitary sock was visible on virtually every player in MLB. So I think we can safely say that 90+ years qualify it as the “traditional” look.

    That’s why I’m not as all-gooey over the new San Francisco Giants’ striped socks as some are. If they were striped stirrups, it would be a different story. The Giants truly are not bringing back a classic baseball “look” (any more than the Braves did with that style a few years ago). They are, in actuality, borrowing from soccer to create a new one.

    So, while it’s good to see team-issued stripes, it’s still a bit odd that the foot of the sock is dark colored.

    Absolutely NOT a “historic” look for baseball. Definitely not in the TV era, that’s for sure, which to a great extent is when the mass visual history of sports actually began. Before that, a relatively small percentage of people ever acutally saw unis in color and in use. Moving, that is, not just in photos.

    And, with more and more players opting to return to stirrups, it begs the question: Why wouldn’t the Giants just make them up as stirrups for those players who choose to let the stripes show?

    Instead, the Giants’ look just comes off as some kind of half-assed compromise. It seems likely it’s because many of today’s players don’t even know about sanis, etc., or that they want to wear striped socks, but don’t want to bother with putting in the effort to wear the uni properly.

    This truly isn’t a rant, btw. Is just a summation of facts, and an explanation of why those of us who’ve been around since the TV era began aren’t likely to see the Giants socks as wonderful throwbacks…because they just plain aren’t.

    (Well, okay, the “half-assed” remark and what follows it is a bit of a micro-rant, I guess.) ;)

    —Ricko

  • Justin Tolerable Hamfistedness | March 6, 2010 at 9:27 am |

    [quote comment=”380633″]
    I couldn’t get a screen shot, Coyotes trade Peter Mueller to the Avalanche the other day – they showed him in warm-ups with a blank jersey, no number or NOB – by game time he had his handle, and was given #88…[/quote]
    That was actually the first item in yesterday’s ticker.

  • Kurt Allen | March 6, 2010 at 9:53 am |

    Ah never mind, I had the Mueller thing on my radar last few days, didn’t get a chance to read it yesterday…

  • Kurt Allen | March 6, 2010 at 9:58 am |

    What’s wrong with this picture?? Besides #67, #78, #89, and #91.

    Maybe I’m dating myself too much but I remember a day where the goalie wore #1, #29, or #30, and the rest of the team wore #2 through #28.

    Then they started giving high numbers out to iconic or popular players on the roster – now everything up to #98 (but the original iconic number #99 is retired across the board) is suddenly in play, not even the NBA has gotten out of hand with high numbers…

  • The Jeff | March 6, 2010 at 10:02 am |

    [quote comment=”380639″]What’s wrong with this picture?? Besides #67, #78, #89, and #91.

    Maybe I’m dating myself too much but I remember a day where the goalie wore #1, #29, or #30, and the rest of the team wore #2 through #28.

    Then they started giving high numbers out to iconic or popular players on the roster – now everything up to #98 (but the original iconic number #99 is retired across the board) is suddenly in play, not even the NBA has gotten out of hand with high numbers…[/quote]

    I’d think the freakin huge reebok logo on the back of the neck is a far worse offense than high numbers…but I’m not a hockey fan.

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 10:08 am |

    One other “observational”…observation. About unis and merchandising. Sort of.

    (And here’s my usual warning: This is history, so those who don’t give a shit about history can scroll down to the next post.)

    This week we were talking about the proliferation of jerseys and other gear, and that marketers have created a world where owning same now seems mandatory in order to consider yourself a “true fan” of your team. In that discusson it was mentioned that we don’t see a lot of jerseys, hats, etc., in crowd shots from the 1950’s and before.

    Largely, of course, that’s because such things weren’t available retail the way they are now. And fans could still be fans, even without them.

    But something else occured to me, something related: about using the word “we” when talking about a favorite team. Back then, cities were smaller, enertainment options were fewer (TV was just coming in to many homes) so people found more oommonality simply because there were fewer things outside of work, family and church to be common about. And that meant the sense of community around teams was stronger.

    People could follow only the local teams on radio (and later, TV). Also, folks pretty much were born, lived, raised a family and died in the city where they were born. Society simply was neither as nationally conscious nor as mobile/transient as it is today.

    (And, no offense, but if you weren’t alive to have followed baseball when the Dodgers were in Brooklyn, you really aren’t qualifed to agree or disagree about what follows, because you weren’t there, and can’t know how it was. So just digest it, and think about it.)

    When a Brooklynite in, say, October of 1955, said, “WE finally won a World Series” he was talking about Brooklyn—or he and other fans—not the Dodgers or the Dodger brand to which he was loyal.

    HUGE difference from today, when “we” most times seems to mean the speaker has bought into the notion that he is, in spirit, somehow part of the team…even if that team is a thousand miles from his home. And he can prove it because he has an actual, for-real jersey. And several hats. And a hoodie. And a beanbag chair.

    I can’t provide any numbers or anything to prove this. Just an awareness of the difference in the way people saw things, thought about things.

    And, as I said, if you weren’t alive to experience both eras, you really can’t know the difference. But it’s real, it truly is.

    And it’s something to think about when pondering the games, their times and their fans.

    (We now return you to your regular Saturday fun).

    —Ricko

  • M.Princip | March 6, 2010 at 10:10 am |

    I really like Danny’s take on the 1905 Pirates uniforms. I’m especially into the number font, and would love to see the rest of the number set.

    Not crazy about Joe Piperno’s idea of having the Seahawks in a lime green jersey throwback. Might be another 10 years before we get another throwback game if the outcome is a bad loss. I do like the idea of the Seahawks throwbacks in green jerseys, however, only in the deep emerald green. Something akin to what the Oregon Ducks wore this past year could be cool. Just add those old school matte gray pants, and silver helmets w/gray face masks………black shoes, oi!

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 10:17 am |

    ESPN just ran a story that used a bit of footage from the Bears-Seahawks game with the lime green jerseys. Hate the lime green if you will, but with both teams in shades of dark blue on helmets and pants, that would have been one really dull and gloomy visual experience had the Hawks worn their regular gray-blue jerseys.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 10:39 am |

    ricko raised an intersting point on the “we”…

    whilst watching the olympic hockey, i had no problem referring to the team from the US as “we” and “us”…

    yet those same players, if i knew who they were, i would probably not be a fan of because they play for a different them than one of which i am (or once was) a fan…yet, i don’t refer to the islanders as “we,” even though i used to go to a dozen games a year in the 1980’s and lived (and still live) about 5 minutes away from the mausoleum

    it’s an interesting concept — this “we” bums, “we” brooklynites, which translates to “we” dodgers…i can see how it was different back then, for the very reasons ricko mentions

    just like robert preston marshall having a “we” allegiance to tOSU, as he is an alum…yet never (i don’t believe, anyway) played a down for the bucks

    perhaps we win or the past tense isn’t so bad as “we” make it out to be

    it still kills me to hear ANY mets fan to refer to the team in the first person plural, especially nowadays…and i don’t think i’ll ever come around to the concept applying today

    but back in 1955…the denizens of an entire boro, for one beautiful, gleaming moment…were all dodgers

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 10:44 am |

    [quote comment=”380644″]
    perhaps we win or the past tense isn’t so bad as “we” make it out to be

    [/quote]

    don’t wanna let me hotlink?

    fine, i’ll host it myself

    we won

  • Hibbsy | March 6, 2010 at 10:55 am |

    just like robert preston marshall having a “we” allegiance to tOSU, as he is an alum…yet never (i don’t believe, anyway) played a down for the bucks

    Baseball. Not football.

  • Hibbsy | March 6, 2010 at 10:56 am |

    “whole mess”

  • 3Ddude | March 6, 2010 at 11:06 am |

    “We” lost to Canada. *sniff!*

    Yeah yeah I am Canadian. I just want to say, it would have been catastrophic if we lost our game on home soil– regardless of opponent. To compare– I don’t think there is anything the USA could lose on home soil that would be as devastating. Baseball? Football? Basketball? The USA is a multisport country.

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 11:09 am |

    [quote comment=”380648″]”We” lost to Canada. *sniff!*

    Yeah yeah I am Canadian. [/quote]

    my sympathies

    well…you won the one that counted

    if only the us had worn the squaw valleys for the gold medal game…

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 11:11 am |

    Damn.
    Hate to sound like I’m picking on Danny, but…

    “I started by re-creating the ‘KC’ logo and used their original color palette.”

    A’s first played in Kansas City in ’55. The green and gold came in ’63, at least the third season Finley owned the club.

    Their “original color palette” in KC was navy and red, as it had been their final season in Philadelphia.

    —Ricko

  • 3Ddude | March 6, 2010 at 11:16 am |

    [quote comment=\”380649\”][quote comment=\”380648\”]\”We\” lost to Canada. *sniff!*

    Yeah yeah I am Canadian. [/quote]

    my sympathies [/quote]

    Our sports uniform industry is socialized. :p

  • Randy Miller | March 6, 2010 at 11:16 am |

    Ricko:

    To dovetail on your comments about 1950s crowds — most crowd pictures show an abundance of dress shirts and ties. And, in fact, adult males who wore t-shirts out in public were considered to be lower-class, to be polite.

  • Mike Engle | March 6, 2010 at 11:16 am |

    Phil:
    Why so many different fonts and sizes in the main entry? It’s incredibly hard to read, and I don’t like it at all. I thought this was Uni Watch, not the Toronto Blue Jays’ locker room.

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 11:18 am |

    [quote comment=”380648″]”We” lost to Canada. *sniff!*

    Yeah yeah I am Canadian. I just want to say, it would have been catastrophic if we lost our game on home soil– regardless of opponent. To compare– I don’t think there is anything the USA could lose on home soil that would be as devastating. Baseball? Football? Basketball? The USA is a multisport country.[/quote]

    Which makes the Canada/Hockey thing a valid parallel to Brooklyn and the Dodgers. The “we” is based on the abstration of the commonality and community created among the fan base, that “we” rooted together and “we” got the victory to celebrate and revel in, not the abstraction that individuals see themselves somehow as de facto members of the team.

    —Ricko

  • Randy Miller | March 6, 2010 at 11:18 am |

    Danny, thanks for some innovative and interesting tweaks.

    However, the Rays’ jersey must say Tampa Bay, since the St. Petersburgers actually host the Rays.

  • Chance Michaels | March 6, 2010 at 11:19 am |

    Ricko, I can’t help but think that your Giants rant is misplaced.

    The Giants *are* making the new socks available in stirrup form. Do your gripe isn’t really with the team.

    Would I prefer they all wear stirrups? Of course. That’s baseball. But full socks are infinitely preferable to pyjama pants. So offering players TWO options for showing some sock had to be viewed as a net positive.

    In fact, I think the Giants ought to be commended for this move. We didnt get into this pant-dragging mess overnight, and incremental steps are still steps inthe right direction.

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 11:19 am |

    [quote comment=”380653″]Phil:
    Why so many different fonts and sizes in the main entry? It’s incredibly hard to read, and I don’t like it at all. I thought this was Uni Watch, not the Toronto Blue Jays’ locker room.[/quote]

    trying something new

    what browser do you use? might not be seeing the fonts the way i coded them…

    but point well taken

  • The Jeff | March 6, 2010 at 11:23 am |

    [quote comment=”380653″]Phil:
    Why so many different fonts and sizes in the main entry? It’s incredibly hard to read, and I don’t like it at all. I thought this was Uni Watch, not the Toronto Blue Jays’ locker room.[/quote]

    It could be worse… it’s not like it was done in Comic Sans. Personally I have no problems with the different fonts. It kinda helps separate everything.

  • Justin Tolerable Homerism | March 6, 2010 at 11:24 am |

    [quote comment=”380649″][quote comment=”380648″]”We” lost to Canada. *sniff!*

    Yeah yeah I am Canadian. [/quote]

    my sympathies

    well…you won the one that counted

    if only the us had worn the squaw valleys for the gold medal game…[/quote]
    “squaw valleys” had nuttin’ to do with it. Team USA puts Dustin Byfuglien on the roster and that’s a guaranteed gold medal for them.

  • Mike Engle | March 6, 2010 at 11:29 am |

    [quote comment=”380657″][quote comment=”380653″]Phil:
    Why so many different fonts and sizes in the main entry? It’s incredibly hard to read, and I don’t like it at all. I thought this was Uni Watch, not the Toronto Blue Jays’ locker room.[/quote]

    trying something new

    what browser do you use? might not be seeing the fonts the way i coded them…

    but point well taken[/quote]
    Firefox 3.6, on a Mac.

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 11:36 am |

    [quote comment=”380656″]Ricko, I can’t help but think that your Giants rant is misplaced.

    The Giants *are* making the new socks available in stirrup form. Do your gripe isn’t really with the team.

    Would I prefer they all wear stirrups? Of course. That’s baseball. But full socks are infinitely preferable to pyjama pants. So offering players TWO options for showing some sock had to be viewed as a net positive.

    In fact, I think the Giants ought to be commended for this move. We didnt get into this pant-dragging mess overnight, and incremental steps are still steps inthe right direction.[/quote]

    Didn’t know they were making stirrups available. Missed that. Changes things some. Hopefully, that will be the choice of most players who opt to show stripes.

    Another question. Are solid black full stripeless socks still issued as an option for Giants players? Cuz that would just be…I dunno, wrong.

    Still, black full socks with stripes is a soccer sock. Period.

    Yes, it may BECOME as baseball sock. But it hasn’t BEEN a baseball sock.

    (And I don’t mind the ankle length pants. Still the most comfortable way to wear baseball pants I’ve ever found—with a little bagginess, yes—so I understand it. The excessive bagginess to the point of looking sloppy, though, is a bit much.)

    —Ricko

  • concealed78 | March 6, 2010 at 11:46 am |

    [quote comment=”380632″]Is the June 8, 1996 game at Tiger Stadium the last time the Yankees wore an alt uniform [/quote]

    Wait, what?

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 11:51 am |

    if i may, i think ricko’s point isn’t about the fact that the giants are showing sock, but that these particular socks have stripes that are too high up on the sock itself

    and, traditionally, they should be lower on the calf (and maybe be actual rups too

  • dannyfinocchio | March 6, 2010 at 11:57 am |

    hey everyone. i really appreciate all the positive comments. these uniform concepts were really fun to create. i also really like all the critical comments as well, i.e. the sanitary sock argument, historical accuracy..etc. it’s just a testament to the intelligence and detailed eyes of the Uni-Watch readers.

    just to clear up some things…I realize that the sanitary sock+stirrup combo was the standard issue for MLB for most of its history. when i created these “tweaks” i didn’t exactly expect to see them presented on the site in this way…basically i just didn’t get into that much detail when creating the template. i knew that the concept might get scrutinized a bit for lack of stirrups, but i left they in their original state because i didn’t have time to change the template. if i ever create more, i’ll be sure to add the sani+stirrup element.

    as for historical accuracy…well, they’re my “tweaks”…basically, they’re a reflection of what i would want to see. to me, historical accuracy certainly had a place in the designs, but i’m also not “recreating” the specific uniform from that specific year…i’m creating the design with the idea of what i would want to see in my mind.

    keep the comments coming! i would love to hear more!

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 11:57 am |

    For the record (and this is how they were manufactured, marketed and labeled even through the 1970’s)…

    http://farm5.static....

    If various baseball versions had higher stirrups, the stripes moved higher along with them, staying in postion relative to the stirrups.

    The football stirrups, because they were to be concealed, stayed right were they were.

    —Ricko

  • Juke Early | March 6, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

    Danny! 5 run homer – keep thinking outside that box too ;-)

    As for the Mets – the corporate name bringing back an NL team to NYC, was the New York Metropolitan Baseball Club, Inc. There had been an old time team named the Metropolitans & Mets was chosen with a nod to them. It is also a nickname, by which the Mets were referred to a lot more in the 60’s than now.

    Charlie Finley switched the A’s color to Gold & Kelly Green to honor his Irish roots. The green obvious for the Emerald Isle, the other was for a Leprechaun’s legendary pot of gold .

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 12:03 pm |

    Yup, them there is soccer socks.
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • traxel | March 6, 2010 at 12:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”380664″]hey everyone. i really appreciate all the positive comments. these uniform concepts were really fun to create. i also really like all the critical comments as well, i.e. the sanitary sock argument, historical accuracy..etc. it’s just a testament to the intelligence and detailed eyes of the Uni-Watch readers.

    just to clear up some things…I realize that the sanitary sock+stirrup combo was the standard issue for MLB for most of its history. when i created these “tweaks” i didn’t exactly expect to see them presented on the site in this way…basically i just didn’t get into that much detail when creating the template. i knew that the concept might get scrutinized a bit for lack of stirrups, but i left they in their original state because i didn’t have time to change the template. if i ever create more, i’ll be sure to add the sani+stirrup element.

    as for historical accuracy…well, they’re my “tweaks”…basically, they’re a reflection of what i would want to see. to me, historical accuracy certainly had a place in the designs, but i’m also not “recreating” the specific uniform from that specific year…i’m creating the design with the idea of what i would want to see in my mind.

    keep the comments coming! i would love to hear more![/quote]
    Ha! My spam word was “dan”. Hey Danny, you’ve opened a whole new can of worms for me in my own tweaking. I can’t say enough about how cool these ideas are. As for critic’s comments, I like getting them, agreeing and making a tweak of my tweak, or disregarding if I don’t like it. Gotta run now but I’ll post my thoughts later! Oh, the background really sets it off. Thinking of the presentation of the whole package certainly adds to it. Eggggggsellent work (if you can call it that)!

  • Jet | March 6, 2010 at 12:11 pm |

    Nice job, Danny. I’d wear that KC Athletics get-up in a heartbeat! Some of the swashes under the script lettering are too fat in comparison to the letters, if I could nit-pick one little thing.

  • Jet | March 6, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”380639″]What’s wrong with this picture?? Besides #67, #78, #89, and #91.

    Maybe I’m dating myself too much but I remember a day where the goalie wore #1, #29, or #30, and the rest of the team wore #2 through #28.

    Then they started giving high numbers out to iconic or popular players on the roster – now everything up to #98 (but the original iconic number #99 is retired across the board) is suddenly in play, not even the NBA has gotten out of hand with high numbers…[/quote]

    Just another of the irritating little things about modern hockey that all add up to me not being a fan of modern hockey anymore. It’s been like this for a while though, not a recent development.

    -Jet

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 12:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”380663″]if i may, i think ricko’s point isn’t about the fact that the giants are showing sock, but that these particular socks have stripes that are too high up on the sock itself

    and, traditionally, they should be lower on the calf (and maybe be actual rups too[/quote]

    Ideally back then, you wanted the stripes to be centered between the highest point of the front stirrup and the bottom of the bloused pants.

    Make sense?

    —Ricko

  • traxel | March 6, 2010 at 12:18 pm |

    One bid of confusion….the 1959 KC A’s hadn’t switched to green/gold yet I don’t think. Weren’t they still blue/red until the Finely makeover in the mid-60’s?

  • Kyle | March 6, 2010 at 12:23 pm |

    The Steelers should NEVER wear a yellow jersey, they should NEVER wear black pants, and I am barely capable of watching the Steelers with yellow buckets and white pants. IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT!!!

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 12:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”380673″]The Steelers should NEVER wear a yellow jersey, they should NEVER wear black pants, and I am barely capable of watching the Steelers with yellow buckets and white pants. IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT!!![/quote]

    Ah, the lost touchstone of Tweakdom.

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 12:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”380672″]One bid of confusion….the 1959 KC A’s hadn’t switched to green/gold yet I don’t think. Weren’t they still blue/red until the Finely makeover in the mid-60’s?[/quote]

    Been noted. Check this…
    http://exhibits.base...

    Finley’s first season as owner was 1961.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”380675″][quote comment=”380672″]One bid of confusion….the 1959 KC A’s hadn’t switched to green/gold yet I don’t think. Weren’t they still blue/red until the Finely makeover in the mid-60’s?[/quote]

    Been noted. Check this…
    http://exhibits.base...

    Finley’s first season as owner was 1961.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    btw, doesn’t show very well there, but the ’61 set had a red edge on the chest “A” and on the numerals.

    Don’t let nobody tell you differently.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

    And the light-crowned hat in ’62 was gray. Road only.

    They alternated the red sleeves-red socks with navy sleeves-navy socks both home and road.

    Wore navy hat with both at home. Wore ONLY gray hat with the red ensemble on the road.

    I’ve noted that before, I know. But it keeps coming up. That Finley, he was always trying something. Even before the gold unis.

    btw, KC fans REALLY hated the ’61 set. After all those years of being “the Yankees’ major league farm team”, the idea of wearing unis that looked that much like the Yankees did NOT go over well.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 12:52 pm |

    re: 1961 KC A’s.
    These are b&w, but you can see there’s a contrasting edge on the “A” and the numbers. It was red.
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • Andy | March 6, 2010 at 12:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”380673″]The Steelers should NEVER wear a yellow jersey… IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT!!![/quote]

    They’ve already worn a yellow jersey. Numerous times. And it obviously needs to be fixed, because it’s so broke that the gawldamn fat-ass stripes don’t even fit on the sleeve. The plain yellow Northwestern stripes and the yellow numbers rock, though I don’t love the whie pants or the look of the full color logo on a yellow helmet.

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

    Andy said…

    “They’ve already worn a yellow jersey. Numerous times.”

    Before the TV era, that is. Which means its hardly something they shared with many people.

    Not saying you’re incorrect, of course, just that it’s not anything resembling being part of the common widespread NFL visual history, meaning very, very few people think of gold jerseys when they think of the Steelers.

    John McGraw’s Giants wore lavender (or purple) for a season or two once upon a time, too. The Dodgers did the same with kelly green. But that doesn’t make those unis traditional for either of them. Historical? Yes. Traditional, no.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 1:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”380671″][quote comment=”380663″]if i may, i think ricko’s point isn’t about the fact that the giants are showing sock, but that these particular socks have stripes that are too high up on the sock itself

    and, traditionally, they should be lower on the calf (and maybe be actual rups too[/quote]

    Ideally back then, you wanted the stripes to be centered between the highest point of the front stirrup and the bottom of the bloused pants.

    Make sense?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    total sense

    it was just a q&d paint job

    was trying to show how just moving one stripe down and adding a small rup would make that look 100% better

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 1:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”380681″][quote comment=”380671″][quote comment=”380663″]if i may, i think ricko’s point isn’t about the fact that the giants are showing sock, but that these particular socks have stripes that are too high up on the sock itself

    and, traditionally, they should be lower on the calf (and maybe be actual rups too[/quote]

    Ideally back then, you wanted the stripes to be centered between the highest point of the front stirrup and the bottom of the bloused pants.

    Make sense?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    total sense

    it was just a q&d paint job

    was trying to show how just moving one stripe down and adding a small rup would make that look 100% better[/quote]

    Wasn’t offered in the context of your “adjustment” to the Giants photo.
    Was just a “back then” observation, and how it related to the manufacture, and wearing, of stirrup socks.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

    ok…one more quick tweak to mr. zito

    brought the stripe down one more level and increased the rup height

    damn that’s almost perfect

  • Jet | March 6, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”380676″]
    btw, doesn’t show very well there, but the ’61 set had a red edge on the chest “A” and on the numerals.

    Don’t let nobody tell you differently.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I like the 1962 Kansas City A’s set the best of the pre-green-and-gold era. Vests, white hats, what’s not to love? Good comment on the fans hating the ’61 set and you’re right, didn’t realize how much they resemble the Yanks…

    -Jet

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 1:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”380683″]ok…one more quick tweak to mr. zito

    brought the stripe down one more level and increased the rup height

    damn that’s almost perfect[/quote]

    There ya go.

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”380684″][quote comment=”380676″]
    btw, doesn’t show very well there, but the ’61 set had a red edge on the chest “A” and on the numerals.

    Don’t let nobody tell you differently.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I like the 1962 Kansas City A’s set the best of the pre-green-and-gold era. Vests, white hats, what’s not to love? Good comment on the fans hating the ’61 set and you’re right, didn’t realize how much they resemble the Yanks…

    -Jet[/quote]

    Yup, that ’62 set was great.
    Mentioned before that I saw both road combos in a doubleheader vs. the Twins at the Met. Was cool.

    And again. No white hat, no matter what “official” or quasi-official websites tell us. Was gray (road) only, and only with the red sleeves and red socks.

    —Ricko

  • Skycat | March 6, 2010 at 1:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”380666″]As for the Mets – the corporate name bringing back an NL team to NYC, was the New York Metropolitan Baseball Club, Inc. There had been an old time team named the Metropolitans & Mets was chosen with a nod to them. It is also a nickname, by which the Mets were referred to a lot more in the 60’s than now.
    [/quote]

    Be that as it may, the official name of the national league team representing New York is the “New York Mets.” I also have it on good authority that the Jets were never called the Jetropolitans.

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 1:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”380687″]Be that as it may, the official name of the national league team representing New York is the “New York Mets.” I also have it on good authority that the Jets were never called the Jetropolitans.[/quote]

    but until recently, the NYY shortstop was thought to be a jeterosexual

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 1:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”380687″][quote comment=”380666″]As for the Mets – the corporate name bringing back an NL team to NYC, was the New York Metropolitan Baseball Club, Inc. There had been an old time team named the Metropolitans & Mets was chosen with a nod to them. It is also a nickname, by which the Mets were referred to a lot more in the 60’s than now.
    [/quote]

    Be that as it may, the official name of the national league team representing New York is the “New York Mets.” I also have it on good authority that the Jets were never called the Jetropolitans.[/quote]

    And I can confirm that New York’s original World Team Tennis entry was not the Setropolitans.

  • Juliet Tango Hotel | March 6, 2010 at 2:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”380683″]ok…one more quick tweak to mr. zito

    brought the stripe down one more level and increased the rup height

    damn that’s almost perfect[/quote]
    Any way you slice it, the black sock with three orange stripes is still preferable to the solid black sock.

    Baby steps, my friends. Rome was not built in a day. Anything to loosen the Pajamistas’ iron grip is a good thing in my book.

  • Jeff P | March 6, 2010 at 2:17 pm |

    Unlike others, I don’t mind the soccer socks. I prefer stirrups, but the solid one color sock look is what the stirrups were originally supposed to emulate. Besides, something is better then nothing. But the striping should be lower on the socks.

    [quote comment=”380683″]ok…one more quick tweak to mr. zito

    brought the stripe down one more level and increased the rup height

    damn that’s almost perfect[/quote]

    Please mail that photo to the Giants Equipment manager.

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 2:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”380691″]Please mail that photo to the Giants Equipment manager.[/quote]

    i already sent the first one to paul, with that very message…i’ll send him #2 as well

    they won’t listen to me…but if mr. lukas gives it a thumbs up…perhaps there’s hope

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”380691″]Unlike others, I don’t mind the soccer socks. I prefer stirrups, but the solid one color sock look is what the stirrups were originally supposed to emulate. Besides, something is better then nothing. But the striping should be lower on the socks.

    [quote comment=”380683″]ok…one more quick tweak to mr. zito

    brought the stripe down one more level and increased the rup height

    damn that’s almost perfect[/quote]

    Please mail that photo to the Giants Equipment manager.[/quote]

    Well, there’s finally (praise Heaven) achieving what they were after in 1898 and the reality of the way baseball uniforms actually have been worn for 100+ years.

    Nah (smile), not being combative at all, really.

    I just don’t get how someone who claims to know baseball could ever look at the unaltered Zito photo and think, “Yup, that what traditional baseball socks looks like.”

    On what planet?

    —Ricko

  • Squiddie | March 6, 2010 at 2:30 pm |

    Best I could find was 1963 KC Athletics.

    Did other vested unis have TV numbers? (Billy Bryan signing an autograph)

    Athletics take the field

    Norm Siebern’s back.

    Also numbers on the jacket sleeves.

    Charlie Finley’s mechanical rabbit

    Filling up the rabbit is not a euphemism.

  • Jay Tee Aitch | March 6, 2010 at 3:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”380670″][quote comment=”380639″]What’s wrong with this picture?? Besides #67, #78, #89, and #91.

    Maybe I’m dating myself too much but I remember a day where the goalie wore #1, #29, or #30, and the rest of the team wore #2 through #28.

    Then they started giving high numbers out to iconic or popular players on the roster – now everything up to #98 (but the original iconic number #99 is retired across the board) is suddenly in play, not even the NBA has gotten out of hand with high numbers…[/quote]

    Just another of the irritating little things about modern hockey that all add up to me not being a fan of modern hockey anymore. It’s been like this for a while though, not a recent development.

    -Jet[/quote]
    This is something that’s never bothered me. Probably because it’s “always” been this way. There was never a point in my hockey-viewing lifetime where nontraditional numbers did not exist (and I’m pushing 40).

    Although, I do have a set of mental “rules” for what makes for a good high number. Multiples of 11 are most preferable (probably because of growing up seeing guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, Coffey, and Lindros)

    second best: prime numbers
    third: perfect squares
    fourth: other odd numbers
    worst: other even numbers

    So, by my “rules”, Patrick Kane > Evgeni Malkin > Marian Hossa > Sidney Crosby > Tomas Kopecky.

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 3:45 pm |

    Just in case anyone interested might have overlooked it…
    White Sox vs. Cubs Cactus League game from Mesa on WGN right now.

    —Ricko

  • Jamboree Tempest Hullabaloo | March 6, 2010 at 3:47 pm |

    By the way, the new fonts look fine with firefox/Windows XP and with Safari/iPhone.

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 3:47 pm |

    …and MAJOR LEAGUE is on The Comedy Channel.

  • drewdez | March 6, 2010 at 4:51 pm |

    Watching the White Sox-Dodgers game, and the White Sox have a no-name shortstop in there wearing an adjustable hat. Charley Steiner was so amused by this that he nearly coughed up a lung.

    If you have MLB.tv, check out the bottom of the sixth.

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 5:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”380694″]Charlie Finley’s mechanical rabbit

    [/quote]

    man, lance!

    i’d seen the rabbit before, but i never seen a pixture THAT good

    say it with me: “HOW GREAT IS THAT?”

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 5:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”380700″][quote comment=”380694″]Charlie Finley’s mechanical rabbit

    [/quote]

    man, lance!

    i’d seen the rabbit before, but i never seen a pixture THAT good

    say it with me: “HOW GREAT IS THAT?”[/quote]

    That’s the green and gold, white-shoed version. The original was wearing the 1961 pins (back awhile someone posted a photo of the pins-clad original here at UW, I think).

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 5:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”380701″]That’s the green and gold, white-shoed version. The original was wearing the 1961 pins (back awhile someone posted a photo of the pins-clad original here at UW, I think).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    yeah…start with comment #191 by some dickhead

    what a shitty main article that day

    :)

    (btw…powers, per usual, fucked up a hyperlink, so if the whole page appears spread wide…that’s why)

    good chatter that day…we discussed the WNBA, and what would happen if favre signed with the vikings…a FULL YEAR AND A HALF before he actually did

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 6:09 pm |

    Ah, yes, the pinstriped ball bunny…
    http://i256.photobuc...

    Also nice to see another photo showing that the first golds in ’63 had “ATHLETICS” on the front, not just the “A” that showed on Topps cards the following spring.
    http://www.gstatic.c...
    http://farm5.static....
    I had sent this one to Paul when I first got my scanner…
    http://farm5.static....
    Love the satin, huh. If you blow that up and look at his left shoulder, you see the “7” that’s been retouched in green. Evidently they had them, decided to remove them and then had second thoughts, leaving them in place, because the numbers on the greeen sleeves were there from the beginning. Although I believe after a few games were told to, by rule, remove those white numbers from the sleeves of their pitching staff.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | March 6, 2010 at 6:47 pm |

    Is that Harry Truman with the cane?
    http://www.gstatic.c...

    Could be. ’63 was nine years before his death.

    —Ricko

  • rpm | March 6, 2010 at 6:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”380646″]just like robert preston marshall having a “we” allegiance to tOSU, as he is an alum…yet never (i don’t believe, anyway) played a down for the bucks

    Baseball. Not football.[/quote]

    grrrrr…paul not preston.
    nope, not a down, as for the other, no comment.

  • Chris from Carver | March 6, 2010 at 6:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”380704″]Is that Harry Truman with the cane?
    http://www.gstatic.c...

    Could be. ’63 was nine years before his death.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    It is him; here’s another picture from that day, with the names of the other two.

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 6:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”380704″]Is that Harry Truman with the cane?
    http://www.gstatic.c...

    Could be. ’63 was nine years before his death.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    is that a young FDR?

  • Chris from Carver | March 6, 2010 at 6:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”380706″][quote comment=”380704″]Is that Harry Truman with the cane?
    http://www.gstatic.c...

    Could be. ’63 was nine years before his death.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    It is him; here’s another picture from that day, with the names of the other two.[/quote]
    forgot the link: http://www.life.com/...

  • Chance Michaels | March 6, 2010 at 7:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”380687″][quote comment=”380666″]As for the Mets – the corporate name bringing back an NL team to NYC, was the New York Metropolitan Baseball Club, Inc. There had been an old time team named the Metropolitans & Mets was chosen with a nod to them. It is also a nickname, by which the Mets were referred to a lot more in the 60’s than now.
    [/quote]

    Be that as it may, the official name of the national league team representing New York is the “New York Mets.” I also have it on good authority that the Jets were never called the Jetropolitans.[/quote]

    Nor were the Cosmos the “Cosmopolitans”, although that was the source of their nickname

  • random reader | March 6, 2010 at 7:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”380632″]Is the June 8, 1996 game at Tiger Stadium the last time the Yankees wore an alt uniform, aside from the various caps MLB has had teams wear on July 4, etc.?[/quote]

    You really need to provide more details about this.

  • Mike Engle | March 6, 2010 at 7:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”380710″][quote comment=”380632″]Is the June 8, 1996 game at Tiger Stadium the last time the Yankees wore an alt uniform, aside from the various caps MLB has had teams wear on July 4, etc.?[/quote]

    You really need to provide more details about this.[/quote]
    I’d find it easier to believe that that would be the last time the TIGERS wore an alternate, thinking back to their short-lived navy tops.
    (Before you get too riled up, I’m assuming “alternate” is different from “Negro League one-off.”)

  • scott | March 6, 2010 at 7:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”380711″][quote comment=”380710″][quote comment=”380632″]Is the June 8, 1996 game at Tiger Stadium the last time the Yankees wore an alt uniform, aside from the various caps MLB has had teams wear on July 4, etc.?[/quote]

    You really need to provide more details about this.[/quote]
    I’d find it easier to believe that that would be the last time the TIGERS wore an alternate, thinking back to their short-lived navy tops.
    (Before you get too riled up, I’m assuming “alternate” is different from “Negro League one-off.”)[/quote]

    That was a Negro League turn-back-the-clock game in Detroit that day. I know the Tigers have participated in such games since, but I don’t believe the Yankees have.

  • LI Phil | March 6, 2010 at 8:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”380712″]
    That was a Negro League turn-back-the-clock game in Detroit that day. I know the Tigers have participated in such games since, but I don’t believe the Yankees have.[/quote]

    i remember that game…kenny rogers pitched…im about 99.9% sure they were the “black yankees” and wore a midnight blue uni, yes?

  • rpm | March 6, 2010 at 9:56 pm |
  • FormerDirtDart | March 6, 2010 at 10:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”380714″]ouch[/quote]
    If that image appears in my dreams I will hunt you down.

  • andy | March 6, 2010 at 10:56 pm |

    first time actually posting but looooong time reader etc etc etc

    anyway this video isn’t uni-related but it’s pretty nifty for those suffering from logophila (that’s me and probably other folks here). WGN’s promo for the upcoming Cubs season, complete with logos used by the station over the years:

    hyar

    also notice that despite the fact that WGN has only had four primary Cubs PBP guys since they began broadcasting the games, only three are represented here. *cough*

  • rpm | March 6, 2010 at 11:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”380715″][quote comment=”380714″]ouch[/quote]
    If that image appears in my dreams I will hunt you down.[/quote]

    i wouldn’t blame you one bit.

  • Clyde | March 7, 2010 at 12:43 am |

    Very very awesome Danny! Love the Browns and the Nats!

  • Bill G | March 7, 2010 at 1:02 am |

    [quote comment=”380715″][quote comment=”380714″]ouch[/quote]
    If that image appears in my dreams I will hunt you down.[/quote]
    He should already be in the Hall of Fame. Just sayin’.

  • Traxel | March 7, 2010 at 1:15 am |

    [quote comment=”380719″][quote comment=”380715″][quote comment=”380714″]ouch[/quote]
    If that image appears in my dreams I will hunt you down.[/quote]
    He should already be in the Hall of Fame. Just sayin’.[/quote]
    I always thought so, but then I saw that picture…

  • Brett | March 7, 2010 at 3:09 am |

    Well done, Danny! Really enjoyed all of the designs but was especially high on the Nats home design and the “TC” socks for the Twins.

  • sea | March 9, 2010 at 2:46 am |

    online retail watches If you ask a watches connoisseur to say what the most functional watches are, he or she will mention names of mostprestigious brands and one of online retail watches them will certainly be IWC. Watches by IWC aremaximum functional watches – they feature no unnecessary onlineretailwatchdetail, every element of these nice watches has it specific purpose.IWC is a company with long history – it was founded in 1868 and from the very beginning of online retail watch its existence it was clear that this brand would prosper. Watches by IWC have gainedthehearts of watch connoisseurs from all over the world,especially they are liked by men who prefer watches with strict classic design online retail watch.
    IWC watches are valued by people of swiss movement watches many professions that require absolute preciseness and especially by pilots who greatly appreciate reliability of IWC watches. One of the most interesting collections by IWC is Pilot. The collection was created in 1930s when the demand for special watches for pilots was great. Those who like reliable and stylish watches will certainly like a watch from the famous IWC Pilot collection.

    Besides Pilot, IWC has many collections that include wonderful watches that amaze by their perfection. If you want a simple, strict, elegantly designed and functional watch, than one of the best options for you will be an IWC watch. Find IWC watches too expensive? Than pay your attention to dropship watches IWC replica watches.

    IWC replica watches are watches that are really worth your attention, because IWC replica watches have all the characteristics that are demanded by customers. IWC replica watches are elegantly design. IWC replica watches are reliable. IWC replica watches are durable.