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

Getting It Right The First Time

Getting It Right Hed

By Phil Hecken, with Giancarlo

A couple weeks ago, in the comments section, reader Giancarlo raised an extremely germane comment/suggestion/question; to wit: What teams got their uniform exactly right from their inception, so much so that every subesquent uniform iteration that followed has failed to replicate the superior first effort for that team. In some cases, there have been several rebrands along the way, some of which fell laughably short of ever replicating the awesomeness of that first uniform.

Immediately, I shot an email to Giancarlo, who was more than happy to oblige me in coming up with the list, which, while quite comprehensive, is still far from complete. For the introduction to this undertaking, I’ll now happily surrender the floor to GC:

~~~

To be an ideal candidate for what I’ll call a “Fallen From Grace” team we should see a long history of failed attempts to improve upon the debut uniform. Preferably including some eyesores along the journey. On this basis the San Diego Padres are perhaps Number One in all the major sports. Even as a kid I remember how every year or two you could count on a new Padre uniform even uglier than the one before. By the same token, I think we should give a pass to teams that don’t have a long history yet, so while I think that the Marlins ruined their perfectly fine debut uni by emphasizing the black, I’ll give them a little time to realize the mistake.

In a different category are the teams that stuck with a winning template for a great number of years before suddenly losing all sense of judgement. I think the Vikings & NHL’s Sabres & Capitals might qualify here.

Then there are the tinkerers. Miami football fans got a perfect, almost pop art uniform design in 1966 with the Dolphins’ debut. Since then the dolphin in the logo has moved around & been redrawn, pants stripes have been widened & later separated, drop shadow has been added to numbers, the helmet logo has appeared on sleeves, aqua pants have appeared, navy has been added as an accent color, and so on. Have any of these features improved upon the 1966 uni? Not to this fan.

I also don’t like when a team is born with some kind of unique design element & for a later season just drop it & bland their look down. For example, the LA Angels with their halo topped caps of 1961. They found a great trademark that no other team could ever copy and then just mothballed it. The Brewers of 1970 inherited the scrambled eggs piping of the Seattle Pilots, which even if it made no sense was a distinctive oddity. In 1972 they gave that up and suddenly started looking like a college team. They’ve been uni-challenged ever since.

~~~

Thanks, Giancarlo. Great intro which sets up our list nicely. We’ve broken them down into the three major sports, plus hockey. The list, as previously stated, will prove far from complete, but it’s a great starting point. And with that, here we go:

Nominees & borderline cases for the Fallen From Grace category:

MLB

Fallen from Grace

Los Angeles Angels

Minnesota Twins: though chromatically uninventive, what was wrong with that uni?

New York Mets

San Diego Padres

Montreal Expos

Milwaukee Brewers: this one was thrown together in one week; how long did it take to design some of their dud uniforms?

Borderline

Houston Astros: I might actually choose their orangey 1971 update as an improvement

NFL

Fallen From Grace

Atlanta Falcons

New Orleans Saints

Seattle Seahawks: Unless putting the bird on the sleeves was an improvement — I’ve come to think it wasn’t; simpler is better

Borderline

Houston Oilers (Titans): love the silver Oilers of ’66-’71, so this franchise is excused

Minnesota Vikings: I prefer the Northwestern stripes they swapped for UCLAs in 1969 (away only), but Minnesota still looked respectable until recently

Miami Dolphins: So many ideas to so little effect

NBA

Fallen from Grace

Phoenix Suns

(Atlanta) Hawks: Two years into their stay in Atlanta, the Hawks broke out these snazzy blue & green unis (the same year the Vancouver Canucks brought that color scheme into the NHL). It was a whole new identity for the franchise, so I’ll consider this their debut. In ’72 the blue & green vanished & the Pac Man logo came in. Afterwards, all downhill.

New Orleans Jazz (Utah)

Cleveland Cavaliers (and 1974 update): While not obviously classic-looking, the more I see the Cavs Mark I the more right this uni seems. I confess I like their ’74 update just as much – maybe because that’s the look I remember as a basketball-loving youngster.

NHL

Fallen from Grace

Los Angeles Kings

Minnesota North Stars (Dallas Stars). Even better was the before they ever played a game.

Buffalo Sabres

Washington Capitals (even with the white breezers)

Vancouver Canucks

~~~

Well there you have it. Admittedly, this list is probably far from complete, and you may even disagree with some of the choices. But for the most part, I’d say Giancarlo has nailed it. But what do you think? There must be more teams who “got it right the first time” and have never even approached that level since their first uniform. Those who didn’t quite get it on the first try may have improved upon that in their second generation, but have never even come close to tasting that uni-awesomeness since.

Let’s hear what you think.

~~~~~~~~~~

Benchies HeaderWhen does a man really become a man? Some would say 18. Others would argue it’s 21. Then there’s Mike Gundy. One can only imagine the birthday wishes Ol’ Eddie sent him. In case you missed it, someone had a birthday this past Monday.

Here’s a belated Benchies Birthday wishes for one of our own.

~~~~~~~~~~

green knightsPick a Knight: Got an E-mail from Johnny Okray, who has some information and an interesting proposition for the Uni Watch community. Here’s Johnny:

My alum, St. Norbert College in De Pere, WI, is hosting an online survey to cast an identity for the SNC mascot.

Although SNC has been around for a very long time, they have never had a “real life” mascot. With the opening of their new football stadium next year, they are hoping to finally give SNC a new mascot.

SNC went from this logo to this logo a few years ago.

Here is their identity site.

Just wanted to show you this in hopes of maybe giving people a chance to voice their opinion on the mascot site. Because who would I rather have choosing my old school’s new mascot? A bunch of old alumni, or Uni Watchers?

Thanks Johnny. So what say you, Uni Watchers, wanna help Johnny out and Pick a Knight for his old school?

~~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: Every game is memorable. Every out is precious. And for those in attendance, it’s always nice to know that the game you sat through set a record for something. This one is slightly tricky, since there’s a “catch” to the date. 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. Lots to get to, and if you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

First up today is Neil Paine, who’s taking the UW Uni Tweaks ™ and running down the court with it over on another blog. Hey, the more the merrier!:

Hey Phil,

Just wanted to say that I started doing some NBA tweaks at the Basketball-Reference blog, inspired by what you guys have been doing:

basketball-reference.com

I love the concept of redesigning uniforms, and I had made some NBA unis in MS Paint in the past, so I finally got around to making some tweaks myself this weekend. I would not have had the courage to do a post like that if you guys hadn’t started giving an outlet to aspiring uni re-designers at the UniWatch Blog, so thanks, and keep up the great work!

Neil Paine
User Affairs Coordinator
Sports-Reference LLC

~~~

Next up is the Former Dirt Dart, Walter Young, who decided to make the Amazin’s look, um….different. Yeah…that’s the ticket:

I decided to basically throw all of the Mets uniform colors into a blender, and see what comes out. Both Home & Road uniforms retain a small touch of traditional coloring for flavor (and whimsy). Piping on both uniforms is is coordinated with the color-way of each jerseys word-marks/lettering/numbers.

My Home uniform is more based off of the Mets primary “ball and city-scape” logo than the traditional & current home uni-sets.

The Road uniform retains the traditional “NEW YORK” word-mark, while going with a seriously old school dark road-uni look.

Of course, this will probably cause a number of Mets fans heads to explode.

Walt
FormerDirtDart

~~~

Moving along, we have Patrick Lange, who returns the kelly and gold to Minnesota:

Loved the North Stars look so I applied that treatment to the current Minnesota hockey team.

~~~

And closing the show…it had to happen some time. Here’s “Mr. Murray” with some BFBS observations, and then some soccer uni tweaks. Yep…soccer:

Hey there,

Black-for-black’s-sake is something I’ve been stewing about for a while now, because one of my favorite teams pulled it this year. The Boston Blazers (National Lacrosse League) introduced an alternate uniform this year, giving them red homes, white aways, and (surprise!) black alternates. There is clearly black in the logo, but it’s a silhouette, so of course it’s black. I would be content to grumble and live with the alternates, but one thing makes it an absolute travesty — aside from their home opener and closer, they wore black alts for the remaining six home games! Wearing a black alt is one thing, but to wear it for six out of eight home games…it kinda ceases to be an alt. And it makes my eyes hurt.

In addition, I’ve got some uni-tweaks…well, they’re more like “uni what-ifs”. I’m a New England Revolution (Major League Soccer) fan, and decided to see what their 2008-2009 uniforms could have looked like had they used a different template — not necessarily better, just different. Here are the (mixed) results: actual 08-09 kit (for comparison), Houston Dynamo-esque, San Jose Earthquakes-esque, Real Salt Lake-esque, and Seattle Sounders FC-esque.

Thanks for your time.

Mr. Murray

~~~

That’s all for this tweak show. Check back next time for more.

~~~~~~~~~~

derby headerAnd finally, today’s Kentucky Derby Day. I didn’t do anything new or special for today’s post, but I thought, for those of you who may not have been readers a year ago, or who may not have seen this one if you were, I’d run the good part of last year’s Kentucky Derby column. It’s timeless, as is the event. Some good stuff in there. If you read it last year, take a refresher course. All good things in all good time.

So, the Derby’s today. The Kentucky Derby. You know, the “Most Exciting 2 Minutes in Sports.” The kick-off to the triple crown. The Sport of Kings (or is that boxing?). No matter. It’s Derby Day and that means eight hours of buildup on ESPN and then well, two minutes of racing on whatever network owns the rights to the actual race. Probably the Peacock. I’ll have to check. Wanna know how to pick a winner?

In past years, Mr. Lukas has already covered your Kentucky Derby party, your Preakness Silkiness and your Belmont Shooin, so right there you have all you really need to know about the sport, the hoofwear and the spread to break out. It’s all pretty good stuff, actually (the horse racing part, not necessarily the columns — those are spot on).

I wanted to begin this with a set of photos from Lance Smith, who has sent me a few beauties from the Life archives. So, real quick, here’s some Derby bits from Squiddie:

There’s a big set of photos from the 1955 Kentucky Derby. Swaps won that year ridden by Willie Shoemaker. It’s mainly fans and colorful characters photos and less actual Derby photos — like these two gentlemen

I like this color photo. That’s the start of the 1959 Derby. The winner was Tommy Lee. (Man, there’s some obvious jokes there and none of them repeatable in polite society.) Again the winner was ridden by Willie Shoemaker. His number was 8 so I think he’s the yellow livery five from the right.

And I like this photo of mint juleps in 1937. They didn’t hold back on the mint back then. By 1955 they had switched to commemorative glasses.

Man, they used to be really blatant about doping in the 1950s — (in fact, Needles won the 1956 Derby). BTW, here’s Swaps in 1955 with Willie Shoemaker in the Winner’s Circle. Finally, here’s a set of photos of 1964 when Northern Dancer won it. Wasn’t as easy to get a good photo back then.

Thanks Lance. We’ll have more from you tomorrow!

Lets break the Derby down into its few basis elements.

The Mint Juleps: The first (and in many eyes, most important) is the Mint Julep. I mean, c’mon — is there a single drink that is more synonymous with a sporting event than this one? I think not.

The Hats: For many, it’s all about see and being seen. And that means sporting the classiest chapeau, the hottest hats, the largest lid or the tastiest topper you can find. Some are simply stunning. But usually, especially since the aforementioned mint julep is a part of the day’s activities, the choice of headwear is never boring, although frequently what is lacking in taste is more than made up for in original design. Of course, some might say this is the height of douchebaggery. But where else can you wear a funny hat, get liquored to the gills, AND walk away with more bank than you came? Not too many places.

The Silks: Those colorful outfits the jockeys wear? Yup, silks. And there’s nothing purdier than seeing them on top of the ponies on race day. Whether they’re heading for the gate before the race or just breaking on their run, there’s something incredibly beautiful about what can only be described as poetry in motion. When you get a muddy track or an overcast day, the men in silks just seem to burst into magnificent color throughout the race.

The Roses: They call the Kentucky Derby the “Run for the Roses.” Why? Well, because the winning horse gets a shitload of the pungent red flowers. Sometimes they even put ’em on the jockey. They’ve been doing it forever. It’s a nice tradition. Seems like every year the bouquets and blankets get bigger and bigger.

The Steeples: No matter when the race, no matter what the year, there are few landmarks so associated with a single event than the famous steeples at Churchill Downs. And why not? They make a fantastic frame for a shot. They are as much a part of the race as the race itself. Anytime you see a picture that includes this architectural icon, you know it’s Churchill Downs, and you can be pretty certain it’s from The Kentucky Derby.

The Starting Gate: Not nearly as iconic as the steeples, but still an integral part of the race. There is usually a pretty large field in the Derby, and the gate used to be both beautiful and classic. As time progressed, however, it sadly became less classic and more of a corporate billboard. Here’s what it looked like last year. Can they put any more shit on there?

The Bugler: Some call him the trumpeter, others call him the bugler. But no matter what you call him, there is no more anticipated music maker on race day at Churchill Downs than the man in the funny red jacket. Well … maybe the people enjoy a rousing chorus of My Old Kentucky Home more than they do the call to post, but the bugler is the most anticipated fat man in a red jacket fat man in a red suit in Kentucky on the first Saturday in May.

The Pose: Ah yes. The win. And with the win comes the pose. It’s not unique to the Kentucky Derby by any means, but there’s something about winning the Run for the Roses that makes the win all that sweeter. It’s like the ultimate aphrodesiac right there.

The Red Carpet: Wait…what? This aint the Oscars. No, but that doesn’t mean the really special people don’t get the Hollywood treatment. After all, what would the Derby be without Visa and some Grade B talent to share in the fun? OK — VY looks great in that suit, but really, you have to wonderlic if he really likes the ponies or the attention. Seriously, are they there to hit the Exacta or just to show off a really nice hat?

The Jockey Room: I’m not sure what exactly they call the place where the jockeys hang out before and after they race. But it is a really cool place where they keep all the silks. So many to chose from. I wonder, do they just randomly pick one or what? “I like this purple one, I think I’ll wear this one today.” No?

The Rail: No photographer worth his salt would take a shot at the Derby without taking one from beneath the rail. It is the classic shot of the race. No matter what the year, no matter what the horse, you can always count on the classic shot perfectly framed by the rail.

The Finish Pole: That almost sounds like an oxymoron or a really messed up European. But in reality, while the horses cross an invisible “line,” they are actually passing the finish pole. Now, the lettering on the obelisk has changed slightly over the years, the grand finale of the race has always been accomplished by crossing the finish line and passing the finish pole. Yep. That’s one sweet sight for a weary rider after the most exciting two minutes in sports.

Enjoy the race today. Throw a party. Make some mint juleps. Wear a silly hat. Go on — you know you want to. It’s Kentucky Derby Day. Take me down, little Susie, take me down.

~~~~~~~~~~

Alright Uni Watchers, we’re puttin’ a bow on this one. Have a great Saturday.

/Thanks to everyone who inquired about the status of my pop last night.

~~~

If Jack Nicklaus can win the Masters at 46, I can win the Kentucky Derby at 54. — Willie Shoemaker

 

149 comments to Getting It Right The First Time

  • not Osama | May 1, 2010 at 7:15 am |

    While there is a debate if the Tampa Bay Bucs got it right (I think they did) there can be no debate that it was better than it is now!

  • not Osama | May 1, 2010 at 7:22 am |

    Just wanted to clarify that is the 1976 Tampa Bucs that got it right, Yes, the creamsicle crew with their Bucco Bruce a.k.a. “Morgans’ is better than the pewter garbage

  • scott | May 1, 2010 at 7:43 am |

    I thought the Florida Marlins had a good, unique road uniform when they started play; the teal cap with the black visor and the cartoon marlin mimicking the hat logo as part of the script. Then the team started messing it with by going to black caps and finally ditching the cartoon marlin from the front of the jersey, even wearing black jerseys over gray pants most of the time.

    I know some people don’t see teal as a good baseball color, but to me it worked much better on the road caps because of the black visor.

  • Brian K | May 1, 2010 at 8:00 am |

    I live near the Saratoga Race Course in NY. Been on many tours of the back stretch area where the horses stay during the summer meet. On the tour they explain why the jockys wear the silks they wear. Its all due to the owners of the horses. Its almost like the “team uniform” so to speak.

  • Joe D | May 1, 2010 at 8:47 am |

    For the Knight mascot, can I pick “not B.”

    The first one looks like like a mascot you can be proud of, almost intimidating; the third one looks like a comical version and for mascots that’s totally cool; but the second one just looks like some guy in a halloween costume.

  • JohnnySeoul | May 1, 2010 at 8:58 am |

    I have to strongly disagree with 3 of those so-called “Fall From Grace” uniforms. The current Dolphins, Saints, and Cavaliers uniforms are drastic improvements to the ones in the links provided in this article.

  • Paul | May 1, 2010 at 9:03 am |

    Spires, not steeples. They are the twin spires.

  • dudebrotherman | May 1, 2010 at 9:06 am |

    The Phoenix Suns from inception have to be the biggest let down of all uniforms in Sports. Those originals were just that, so original.

    They fell to this: http://www.bestsport...

    They went so downhill all the way to the ultimate lowpoint: http://www.steve-nas...

  • dudebrotherman | May 1, 2010 at 9:07 am |

    And actually even lower than low:
    http://www.realclear...

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 9:20 am |

    Seeing them in person, and compared to what other teams were wearing at the time, the original L.A. Angels will always be one of my favorite MLB unis of all time.
    http://farm4.static....
    Spring training and early ’61, no halo on hat; I know cuz saw ’em play early that year, no halo; it showed up a bit later. Was like, “Whoa, there’s a halo on the hat now!”

    And if the Twins were so desperate to lose the road pins, they could have just done this…
    http://farm5.static....
    …instead of wearing Brewer unis in navy and red (jeez, not even unique from the team right next door). Plus, it would have been a much more sensible complement to the homes, design-wise.

    —Ricko

  • Oakville Endive | May 1, 2010 at 9:21 am |

    In regard to Getting it right the first time, I’m surprised on a couple of picks concerning the NHL .

    1. Washington – I lean towards the traditionalist look, but the Capitals original look was rather boring mis-mash – prefer the current day uni’s

    2. Los Angeles – It was garish – not sure there’s ever been an optimal King’s look

    I would have put Philadelphia Flyers on this list – and possibly the Pittsburgh Penguins – although they probably got it most right – with their second uni.

    Whoever put the Phoenix Suns but I completely agree – I’m not a huge NBA fan, especially back in the 70’s – growing up in Canada – it was this mystery league – but that uni seemed the unique and distinctive.

  • JTH | May 1, 2010 at 9:25 am |

    [quote comment=”388383″]I thought the Florida Marlins had a good, unique road uniform when they started play; the teal cap with the black visor and the cartoon marlin mimicking the hat logo as part of the script. Then the team started messing it with by going to black caps and finally ditching the cartoon marlin from the front of the jersey, even wearing black jerseys over gray pants most of the time.

    I know some people don’t see teal as a good baseball color, but to me it worked much better on the road caps because of the black visor.[/quote]
    I loved their original home look. I thought the solid teal caps really worked for South Florida. The road caps never really did it for me, though (especially when they did the mix & match by wearing them with the home unis).

    I don’t think dark-colored brims work with brightly-colored crowns. If they had flipped it so that it was a teal brim with a black crown, I think it would have been a huge improvement.

    It’s also why I don’t care for the 70s Red Sox caps, the Reds current road look, last year’s Twins fauxbacks, etc.

  • Steve | May 1, 2010 at 9:31 am |

    While I agree that most of those uniforms that Giancarlo listed are better than the current sets, you can’t expect teams just to be content with their original look. Trends change, technology changes, tastes change, owners change, etc.

    Saying teams should have never strayed from their original look is kind of like saying your favorite band’s music shouldn’t have evolved over time. Would you really want to listen to four or five albums that sound exactly the same? Maybe for a while, but then you get tired of it and want change. Evolution shows growth. While not always good, it is just natural.

    Another example is car design. I love old cars, muscle cars, classic cars. I would have one now if I had the money. But it wouldn’t be an every day driver. Why? It just isn’t feasible. While most of the cars nowadays look like alien space ships, they are better for the earth, better for your wallet (atleast at the gas pump), and so on. So the evolution of car design is necessary.

    I’m not saying you are wrong for liking the older uniforms, I’m just saying it’s kind of flawed to think it would be all good if everything just “stayed the same as it was when it debuted.”

    Just my half-thought-out-thoughts.

  • Graf Zeppelin | May 1, 2010 at 9:58 am |

    I thought the Jacksonville Jaguars got it right the first time, with those nice 3-color varsity numerals. The uni has definitely declined since then.

    I agree that the Marlins also got it right, before adding all the black and essentially making black the primary color. Not that I’m a huge fan of teal, but still. The arched serif “FLORIDA” was much nicer than the script version. I also wish they’d kept the round logo as the sleeve patch, instead of duplicating the cap logo.

    As much as I despise the franchise, hard to leave the Islanders off the NHL list.

  • Graf Zeppelin | May 1, 2010 at 10:00 am |

    [Fixing link]

    I thought the Jacksonville Jaguars got it right the first time, with those nice 3-color varsity numerals. The uni has definitely declined since then.

    I agree that the Marlins also got it right, before adding all the black and essentially making black the primary color. Not that I’m a huge fan of teal, but still. The arched serif “FLORIDA” was much nicer than the script version. I also wish they’d kept the round logo as the sleeve patch, instead of duplicating the cap logo.

    As much as I despise the franchise, hard to leave the Islanders off the NHL list.

  • JTH | May 1, 2010 at 10:05 am |

    [quote comment=”388393″]While I agree that most of those uniforms that Giancarlo listed are better than the current sets, you can’t expect teams just to be content with their original look. Trends change, technology changes, tastes change, owners change, etc.

    Saying teams should have never strayed from their original look is kind of like saying your favorite band’s music shouldn’t have evolved over time. Would you really want to listen to four or five albums that sound exactly the same? Maybe for a while, but then you get tired of it and want change. Evolution shows growth. While not always good, it is just natural.

    Another example is car design. I love old cars, muscle cars, classic cars. I would have one now if I had the money. But it wouldn’t be an every day driver. Why? It just isn’t feasible. While most of the cars nowadays look like alien space ships, they are better for the earth, better for your wallet (atleast at the gas pump), and so on. So the evolution of car design is necessary.

    I’m not saying you are wrong for liking the older uniforms, I’m just saying it’s kind of flawed to think it would be all good if everything just “stayed the same as it was when it debuted.”

    Just my half-thought-out-thoughts.[/quote]
    I don’t think DON’T CHANGE — EVER is really the intent of this post. It’s really more saying that these teams happened to have great looks when they debuted and then when they tweaked/overhauled their wardrobes, they kept missing the mark.

    As for me, I’m really looking forward to that GTO Judge convertible as my midlife-crisismobile.

  • Adam | May 1, 2010 at 10:06 am |

    As a hockey guy, I too have to disagree with some of the choices. In my opinion, the Caps did the best rebrand when switching to the new edge template (not considering original 6, because they are remained unchanged). Also, the Black/Silver Kings were actually quite respectable.

  • Matt Beahan | May 1, 2010 at 10:17 am |

    With the Suns, I’d argue that the early ’70s update of the wordmark was better than the original. And the Hawks? Sure, those unis are nice. But they only used them for 2 years, as opposed to almost 40 in the red, gold & white. Personally, I think the Dominique Wilkins-era unis are their best.

    Other NBA teams I think got it right out of the gate:
    San Antonio Spurs: Kept the basic uni the same since their inception. The update in 2002 was quite unnessecary.
    Minnesota Timberwolves: Simple and classy. Although they were called “boring” at the time, they’re so much better than what the team wears now.
    Borderline:
    Dallas Mavericks: Whilst the first unis were nice, it wasn’t until they switched the road unis from blue to green the next year that they really popped.

  • Jim Sherbert | May 1, 2010 at 10:24 am |

    I’ve gotta say, the halo on the Angels’ hat looked totally ridiculous. It crops up a lot in the “man, the old days are awesome!”-type posts (which aren’t always wrong, but I think they are this time). It was silly, unnecessary, and it looked like it was drawn with chalk. If the Angels put a halo on their hat in 2010 they’d be laughed out of baseball.

    I think I disagree with every single MLB uniform you posted besides the Mets, but agree with you on every single NFL uniform. Odd. What inspired the Seahawks to mess with a perfectly iconic uniform and color scheme? Uggghhh.

    And am I crazy because I absolutely loved the 90’s Astros uniforms? I loved the black and gold color scheme, thought it was a perfect fit. Maybe I’m alone!

  • Helmets Match Pants | May 1, 2010 at 10:39 am |

    Well, the Seahawks didn’t really get it right their first season when they didn’t have their helmet logo – but certainly the addition of the helmet logo in season two probably counts as getting it right from the beginning.

  • Chip | May 1, 2010 at 10:43 am |

    As a Seahawks fan, it still makes me sad to see a side-by-side comparison of the original and new uniforms. The new look is a huge downgrade. Even without the neon green jerseys.

    I would also have to nominate the Toronto Blue Jays as a team that got it right the first time, then kept downgrading their uniforms until we get the current look with no consistency between the home and road look.

  • Shaftman | May 1, 2010 at 10:44 am |

    [quote comment=”388395″][Fixing link]

    As much as I despise the franchise, hard to leave the Islanders off the NHL list.[/quote]

    Except that the 1972 Islanders wore these which had minor changes made to the numbers (color) in 1973 and then the sleeve and hem stripes make them perfect in 1978.

    These changes only applied to the blue uniforms. The whites, I agree, were perfect from inception.

  • Shaftman | May 1, 2010 at 10:46 am |

    Forgot the last link…

    [quote comment=”388395″][Fixing link]

    As much as I despise the franchise, hard to leave the Islanders off the NHL list.[/quote]

    Except that the 1972 Islanders wore these which had minor changes made to the numbers (color) in 1973 and then the sleeve and hem stripes make them perfect in 1978.

    These changes only applied to the blue uniforms. The whites, I agree, were perfect from inception.

  • Shaftman | May 1, 2010 at 10:47 am |

    Last time….hopefully I got it right.

    Forgot the last link…

    [quote comment=”388395″][Fixing link]

    As much as I despise the franchise, hard to leave the Islanders off the NHL list.[/quote]

    Except that the 1972 Islanders wore these which had minor changes made to the numbers (color) in 1973 and then the sleeve and hem stripes make them perfect in 1978.

    These changes only applied to the blue uniforms. The whites, I agree, were perfect from inception.

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 10:53 am |

    [quote comment=”388399″]I’ve gotta say, the halo on the Angels’ hat looked totally ridiculous. It crops up a lot in the “man, the old days are awesome!”-type posts (which aren’t always wrong, but I think they are this time). It was silly, unnecessary, and it looked like it was drawn with chalk. If the Angels put a halo on their hat in 2010 they’d be laughed out of baseball.

    I think I disagree with every single MLB uniform you posted besides the Mets, but agree with you on every single NFL uniform. Odd. What inspired the Seahawks to mess with a perfectly iconic uniform and color scheme? Uggghhh.

    And am I crazy because I absolutely loved the 90’s Astros uniforms? I loved the black and gold color scheme, thought it was a perfect fit. Maybe I’m alone![/quote]

    That’s why I posted an Angels photo without the halo.

    I never hated it, but never loved it, either. Seriously “take it or leave it”. It was interesting and unique at the time, a novelty. “Hmmmmm, well that’s clever, I guess.” It’s attraction these days I think is more as an curious notion, rather than a particularly sound one.

    —Ricko

  • Giancarlo | May 1, 2010 at 10:56 am |

    I understand Steve’s point, and I think it’s better to avoid getting too retro-obsessed, but, to be clear, I’m really not against innovation per se. In the list above I only singled out a handful of teams from each sport – that implies that in my judgement the majority of all franchises have done better than their original concept. I actually do like when teams adjust their look to acknowledge changes in tailoring or new materials, for example those few NFL teams that have eliminated or reduced sleeve stripes recognizing the fact that we don’t have ’60s-length sleeves anymore (that’s one Dolphins tweak that I think makes a difference).

    To speak to the muscle car analogy, at least Plymouth never rolled out a K-car and called it a Barracuda.

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 11:00 am |

    [quote comment=”388400″]Well, the Seahawks didn’t really get it right their first season when they didn’t have their helmet logo – but certainly the addition of the helmet logo in season two probably counts as getting it right from the beginning.[/quote]

    Somebody just nudged the side of the box to see how much the marbles would roll around.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 11:07 am |

    re: ST. NORBERT’S KNIGHT.

    I vote for “A”, as long as they keep it friendly and not macho it up like this overused piece of nonsense…
    http://ssreporters.f...

    —Ricko

  • Jeremiah M. | May 1, 2010 at 11:26 am |

    How are the Bills not included on this list? I figured that would be a given.

  • Jet | May 1, 2010 at 11:28 am |

    Great topic for today! I agree with most of your baseball picks, although as much as I love those inaugural Padres uniforms, I prefer this era:
    http://exhibits.base...
    , the last gasp of their brown/gold colors before becoming another nondescript entity in the uniform world. The pinstripes may have been a bit overwhelming but it was still an attempt to adopt a traditionalist look while retaining their original colors.

    I agree with the hockey picks too, and you can add St. Louis to the list. I’ve always adored these beauties: http://stlblueshisto...
    especially the whites with those fantastic blue/yellow shoulder bars. Every attempt to bastardize that original look has wandered farther and farther down a path that causes me to gnash my teeth…

    -Jet

  • Johnny O | May 1, 2010 at 11:36 am |

    [quote comment=”388385″]For the Knight mascot, can I pick “not B.”

    The first one looks like like a mascot you can be proud of, almost intimidating; the third one looks like a comical version and for mascots that’s totally cool; but the second one just looks like some guy in a halloween costume.[/quote]

    Thanks for the input. I picked option “A”. Who doesn’t want a Green Knight mascot to wield a shield? I do feel option “B” is the worst. Have they every seen “The Incredibles”? No mascot/super hero should wear a cape.

    Overall, I like having these three options. Each have their own little characteristics. Hopefully my alum picks a winner.

  • Nickbob | May 1, 2010 at 11:39 am |

    If the Yankees were bought by a casino chain and moved to the desert next week, changing the NY on the hats to LV along with the name on the chest of the road greys, would anyone say the uniform was “thrown together in a week”? The prior design time counts, and the Brewers were using the Pilots template, already in existance. And Bud Selig introduced himself to Major League Baseball, first and foremost through the fans in Seattle, during Spring Training, when hope is supposed to reign in the hearts of every fan.

  • DenverGregg | May 1, 2010 at 11:49 am |

    The Saints have deteriorated (not much, but clearly deteriorated) in every change, as have the hated Raiders – seriously, their original unis were stunning.
    The Falcons have deteriorated, especially in the most recent change.
    The Bills’ last change was nearly half as bad as the Falcons.
    The Vikes last shift was another stinker.

    The Angels should get a pass for dumping the worst major pro sports uni ever.

  • DenverGregg | May 1, 2010 at 11:51 am |

    Almost forgot: I know a St. Norbert’s alum and will probably see him later today. I vote for A.

  • M.Princip | May 1, 2010 at 11:57 am |

    I agree with most of the NFL selections, as far as getting it right the first time. However, in my opinion Miami really hasn’t strayed too far from the original, and thus I have to say their tweaks are very respectable. Now regarding the Seahawks, I remember as a kid I loved the bird on the sleeves, yet hated the white shoes. I still hate the white shoes, yet prefer the simpler sleeve stripes. I will say though the new(2002) Seahawks blue is very very nice. They just need to bring back the silver in some way. Speaking of which, I also loved the Oilers silver unis. The way it played off the red was sweet.

  • Bryan Justman | May 1, 2010 at 12:03 pm |

    I’m sorry, but I’m probably the only Milwaukee native who loves the 1994-99 Brewers uniform. I grew up loving Mollie and Robin, but HATED the stupid cartoonish ball and glove. I was so relieved when they came up with the much more professional-looking outfit. I think it’s the best they ever wore.

  • Johnny O | May 1, 2010 at 12:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”388414″]Almost forgot: I know a St. Norbert’s alum and will probably see him later today. I vote for A.[/quote]

    SNC class of 2006 here. Tell your alum friend to get out and vote! When did your friend graduate? Even graduating in ’06, there is so much that has changed already. My brother is graduating from SNC this year, and I can’t believe all the new buildings and dorms that have been added. This new football stadium is just going to be the icing on the cake.

    Here is a rendering of the new football stadium at St. Norbert College:
    http://www.snc.edu/a...

  • interlockingtc | May 1, 2010 at 12:07 pm |

    For the uniform obsessed, this entry is both entertaining and heartbreaking.

    You look at some of those original uniforms and how obviously superior they are to what is worn today and you are perplexed.

    We are human. We get bored, restless. We think a change will do us good. So we tinker and get creative. We perform a little surgery. Try out some new toys. We think we’ve done well. But..time passes….

    …We look back at what we’ve done and realize that what we had from the start was good, if not great. It was better. We’ve gained perspective, matured. We see it now: We made a mistake.

    We feel regret. Nostalgic. We’re only human, after all.

    But the great thing is with uniforms, you CAN go back. It’s easy.

    So…Padres, Astros, Suns, Mets, et al., just do it! Go back. Admit your mistakes. All will be forgiven. (Sadly, the NFL can never go back. Without sleeves you are hopeless.)

    PS–Great to see my boyhood idol today, Connie Hawkins, rocking the original Suns unis.

    Ricko—I’ve suggested that Twins road tweak that you presented several times. Looks good, doesn’t it? (Though it needs the TC cap).

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 12:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”388409″]How are the Bills not included on this list? I figured that would be a given.[/quote]

    Probably because this was Bills first uni (’60 and ’61; photo from ’61 vs. Texans, ballcarrier is Dewey Bohling, his only season with the team; he’d been a NY Titan in ’60).
    http://farm4.static....
    Royal blue instead of Honolulu Blue and had numbers on helmets, otherwise almost exactly same as Detroit Lions at the time.

    —Ricko

  • pru | May 1, 2010 at 12:20 pm |

    BFBS alert: Tulane baseball wearing black hats with a green bill. Especially egregious since Tulane is the Green Wave.

    However, their uniform tops are fantastic with a bat with Pelicans on the ends (think Cardinals).
    http://store.cstv.co...

  • Giancarlo | May 1, 2010 at 12:21 pm |

    Exactly, regarding the Bills.

    By the way, it’s not easy finding color pics from the AFL’s 1960 season. The best we found of the Houston Oilers were from grainy 1961 Fleer football cards. Funnily enough, when you search in Google Images for original AFL unis you often get Ricko’s adolescent sketches popping up!

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 12:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”388421″]when you search in Google Images for original AFL unis you often get Ricko’s adolescent sketches popping up![/quote]

    lest anyone take that the wrong way…GC’s referring to these…not, um…sketches of an adolescent ricko

    of course, i google in “safe search” mode, so who knows what’s really out there

  • M.Princip | May 1, 2010 at 12:28 pm |

    Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388421″]Exactly, regarding the Bills.

    By the way, it’s not easy finding color pics from the AFL’s 1960 season. The best we found of the Houston Oilers were from grainy 1961 Fleer football cards. Funnily enough, when you search in Google Images for original AFL unis you often get Ricko’s adolescent sketches popping up![/quote]

    Which is the reason I did ’em in the first place. Not for the Internet, of course, but because color photography was so scarce.

    Gee, like a legacy, huh.

    Seriously, it’s nice to know they serve the purpose that somewhere in the back of my mind I knew (hoped?) they might serve one day.

    Now if we could just put to rest this frickin’ brown horsey misconception…
    (actually, I threw that in just because the plain silver Seahawk helmets already have been mentioned today).

    —Ricko

  • Giancarlo | May 1, 2010 at 12:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”388410″]
    I agree with the hockey picks too, and you can add St. Louis to the list. I’ve always adored these beauties: http://stlblueshisto...
    especially the whites with those fantastic blue/yellow shoulder bars. Every attempt to bastardize that original look has wandered farther and farther down a path that causes me to gnash my teeth…
    [/quote]
    That’s a good one. I missed it.

  • Oakville Endive | May 1, 2010 at 12:34 pm |

    If the Phoenix Suns had been hatched say 15 years later, would they have been called the Suns, or would they have been called the Sun?

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 12:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    Well, here’s the home version (that uni was 1962 only, btw, and a damn fine original Pats uni it would have been, if only the Bills, say, had opted for silver and RED instead of royal, or the Titans had been kelly and white from the get-go)…
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

    ’62 Bills uni looks kinda navy in that photo from SPORT magazine. But it was royal.

    —Ricko

  • M.Princip | May 1, 2010 at 12:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”388427″][quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    Well, here’s the home version (that uni was 1962 only, btw, and a damn fine original Pats uni it would have been, if only the Bills, say, had opted for silver and RED instead of royal, or the Titans had been kelly and white from the get-go)…
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Unfortunately, I’m on a computer that is Flickr fucked. :o(

  • M.Princip | May 1, 2010 at 12:44 pm |

    Not sure if this has been mentioned, ticker etc… Yet, Helmet Hut has a very nice vintage Hawaii page up now: http://www.helmethut...

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 12:45 pm |

    UPDATE ON PHIL’S DAD…

    He’s okay. Car totalled, though.
    Phil talked to his mom in car on way to salvage yard to retrieve things from vehicle. Said he could hear his Pop and aunt screaming at each other in the background…so some things are back to normal already.

    Sad issue, though, is that Pop may be facing the “no longer able to drive” imperative. Always a difficult thing. Time, being a heartless SOB, catches up to all of us eventually, whether we want it or not.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 12:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”388429″][quote comment=”388427″][quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    Well, here’s the home version (that uni was 1962 only, btw, and a damn fine original Pats uni it would have been, if only the Bills, say, had opted for silver and RED instead of royal, or the Titans had been kelly and white from the get-go)…
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Unfortunately, I’m on a computer that is Flickr fucked. :o([/quote]

    Check your email. :)

    —Ricko

  • M.Princip | May 1, 2010 at 12:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”388430″]Not sure if this has been mentioned, ticker etc… Yet, Helmet Hut has a very nice vintage Hawaii page up now: http://www.helmethut...

    Wow! Just look at these shoulder stripes: http://www.helmethut...

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 12:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”388428″]’62 Bills uni looks kinda navy in that photo from SPORT magazine. But it was royal.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Another shot of that Bills uni…
    http://farm3.static....

  • M.Princip | May 1, 2010 at 12:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”388432″][quote comment=”388429″][quote comment=”388427″][quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    Well, here’s the home version (that uni was 1962 only, btw, and a damn fine original Pats uni it would have been, if only the Bills, say, had opted for silver and RED instead of royal, or the Titans had been kelly and white from the get-go)…
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Unfortunately, I’m on a computer that is Flickr fucked. :o([/quote]

    Check your email. :)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ah yes, got it. Thanks Ricko. Nice color shots right there.

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 12:55 pm |

    Well, this settles it. Kentucky Derby needs to be moved to a dome on an artifical surface. This race is gonna be a travesty for the sport of kings (not to mention what the rain is gonna do to those HATS!).

    (TFPIC)

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 1:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”388434″][quote comment=”388428″]’62 Bills uni looks kinda navy in that photo from SPORT magazine. But it was royal.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Another shot of that Bills uni…
    http://farm3.static....

    Before someone mentions the apparent inconsistency in that photo, I’ll address it.

    Back then, teams rarely broke out new unis until the regular season opener. That photo is from a 1963 preseason game, which is why we see a 1962-only uni vs. a team that didn’t exist until 1963…the Kansas City Chiefs.

    This also is why there often is TONS of confusion about who wore what when in pro football.

    —Ricko

  • Giancarlo | May 1, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

    In the Remembering the AFL book there’s also a shot of the Bills playing the ’63 Chargers (definitely them because of the “All-American City” emblem) in which the Bills are wearing the white version of what you say is their 1962-only uni. Could be preseason as well, but it raises some doubt.

  • Jack Randolph | May 1, 2010 at 1:19 pm |

    Fallen From Grace. I nominate the Rams. After nearly 50 years in royal blue & bright yellow, they change in 2000 to Notre Dame colors and look bland.

  • patrick | May 1, 2010 at 1:27 pm |

    I’d add the Blues to the list for the NHL. Their original sweaters were a thing of beauty – clean, with solid color combos and an iconic crest. They had a brief experiment adding the Blues wordmark over the note which thankfully went away quickly, but they also “supplemented” that with adding red to the color scheme, and we all know what that led to. Once they ditched those unspeakables, they actually had a really nice modern era jersey going, until the Edge brought about the stupid panels and apron straps.(http://nhluniforms.c...)

  • Hockey Week | May 1, 2010 at 1:28 pm |

    How are the Philadelphia Flyers not on that list? They really haven’t changed the jerseys very much since their inception, and their logo is COMPLETELY UNCHANGED. I don’t know if any other teams with even 20 years of existence can say that, i mean not a single tweak! No alternate logos either! And this is coming from a Penguins fan!

  • patrick | May 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”388439″]Fallen From Grace. I nominate the Rams. After nearly 50 years in royal blue & bright yellow, they change in 2000 to Notre Dame colors and look bland.[/quote]

    Agreed. Same with the Broncos IMO. What’s the deal with teams switching from royal blue to navy? It especially bothers me watching various Team USAs (especially basketball) showing out in navy. Might as well just re-color the flag at this point.

  • Giancarlo | May 1, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”388439″]Fallen From Grace. I nominate the Rams. After nearly 50 years in royal blue & bright yellow, they change in 2000 to Notre Dame colors and look bland.[/quote]
    Except for nine years when they wore just royal and white, which I think was an awesome look. The Fearsome Foursome period.

  • JimV19 | May 1, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

    I concur with most of these, but I think some of these teams didn’t get it right the first time:

    Brewers – This is getting it right. http://exhibits.base...

    Falcons – http://snakevenom12....

    Oilers – http://www.sportsecy...

    Also like the Seahawks with the bird sleeves and the Vikes with the LSU stripes.

  • Giancarlo | May 1, 2010 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388441″]How are the Philadelphia Flyers not on that list? They really haven’t changed the jerseys very much since their inception, and their logo is COMPLETELY UNCHANGED. I don’t know if any other teams with even 20 years of existence can say that, i mean not a single tweak! No alternate logos either! And this is coming from a Penguins fan![/quote]
    Well, that’s why they’re not on the list… they haven’t made any ill-advised makeovers, so they haven’t “fallen.”

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”388438″]In the Remembering the AFL book there’s also a shot of the Bills playing the ’63 Chargers (definitely them because of the “All-American City” emblem) in which the Bills are wearing the white version of what you say is their 1962-only uni. Could be preseason as well, but it raises some doubt.[/quote]

    No so much doubt as confusion, and erroneous assumptions.
    For example…
    http://farm5.static....
    A photo like that gets spotted, thirty years after the fact, and someone goes running off declaring the Bills had a “loopless” version of that jersey.

    No, they didn’t. Let’s look at the photo closely.

    The casual attire of the sideline personnel.
    The wide aisles in the stands, and the general wide open feel of the place. The proximity of the stands to the field. No frickin’ way that’s dowdy old baseball park War Memorial Stadium (see THE NATURAL; it was filmed there). Or anywhere else the AFL played where the Bills would have been the home team.

    Almost certainly ’63 preseason. A preseason game, possibly even an intrasquad game. Just looks like a small college stadium. Or a college stadium, at any rate.

    Because of the lead time necessary for color photos back then (and the difficulty in getting good color), photographers would grab color at their earliest opportunity, especially on bright sunny days. That meant preseason, sometimes even training camp…and best if you got a player so it could be cropped to just him alone, meaning the shot could be used anytime.

    Besides, I remember watching the Bills on opening weekend in ’63, seeing the new non-looped, sleeve-striped unis (the ones everyone loves) for the first time and trying to get a good look at the new stripes. Highly unlikely that after that game they went back to their ’62 set.

    —Ricko

  • SoCalDrew | May 1, 2010 at 1:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”388397″]Also, the Black/Silver Kings were actually quite respectable.[/quote]

    More than respectable – definitive, imho.

  • Mike M | May 1, 2010 at 1:39 pm |

    I think one that can be added to the fall from grace list would be the Blue Jays’.
    The originals from 1977-1978. If they didn’t change the road uniform to read Blue Jays, it would have been longer. Even the ones from 1989-1996 were good. Once 1997 hit, the uniforms have gone downhill.

  • SoCalDrew | May 1, 2010 at 1:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”388443″]Except for nine years when they wore just royal and white, which I think was an awesome look. The Fearsome Foursome period.[/quote]

    Seconded.

  • Giancarlo | May 1, 2010 at 1:44 pm |

    Little known fact: the Rams wore red & black their first season in the NFL (1937).

  • mike 2 | May 1, 2010 at 1:51 pm |

    I agree that the LA Kings don’t belong on the list. I thought the Gretzky-era uniforms were their best. I’d argue that getting rid of that uniform was their fall from grace.

    I’ll add one to the list – the Toronto Maple Leafs. Their original jersey, with stripes everywhere and the more complex logo, is a thing of beauty compared to later versions.

    http://s3.amazonaws....

    http://4.bp.blogspot...

    (and not just because the original version is associated with their glory days and the later version with their dark period)

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 1:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”388449″][quote comment=”388443″]Except for nine years when they wore just royal and white, which I think was an awesome look. The Fearsome Foursome period.[/quote]

    Seconded.[/quote]

    Ah, yes, the Fearsome Foursome of the Chargers: Bill Hudson, Ron Nery, Ernie Ladd and Earl Faison…until the NFL/LA media adopted it for the Rams’ group.

    Actually it predates even them. But I remember thinking the LA media must figure no one watches the AFL. If you did, you heard it all the time.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 2:06 pm |

    This is interesting. From SI’s 1963 Pro Football Preview edition.
    1. First Jets (witness the odd Titans helmet re-painted white.
    2. Nice pants, Weeb.
    3. And a kelly green (I’d wager) sideline line hat from antiquity.
    (Included the story, too, both for fun and confirmation of date)
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 2:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”388436″]Well, this settles it. Kentucky Derby needs to be moved to a dome on an artifical surface. This race is gonna be a travesty for the sport of kings (not to mention what the rain is gonna do to those HATS!).

    (TFPIC)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    fyi…the kentucky derby has never been “rained out”…today could be first…regardless, it’s shaping to be the wettest derby day ever

    check it out (if you care)

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”388454″][quote comment=”388436″]Well, this settles it. Kentucky Derby needs to be moved to a dome on an artifical surface. This race is gonna be a travesty for the sport of kings (not to mention what the rain is gonna do to those HATS!).

    (TFPIC)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    fyi…the kentucky derby has never been “rained out”…today could be first…regardless, it’s shaping to be the wettest derby day ever

    check it out (if you care)[/quote]

    TFPIC is, of course, “Tounge Firmly Planted In Cheek” (although I do worry about the hats).

    —Ricko
    (anti-spam word was “wave”, btw)

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”388453″]This is interesting. From SI’s 1963 Pro Football Preview edition.
    1. First Jets (witness the odd Titans helmet re-painted white.
    2. Nice pants, Weeb.
    3. And a kelly green (I’d wager) sideline line hat from antiquity.
    (Included the story, too, both for fun and confirmation of date)
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    4. Evidently you could ride your bike right up to the field to watch practice, too.

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 2:17 pm |

    Did we ever figure out who made those cleats Griese’s wearing in this photo?
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko

  • Andy | May 1, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    San Diego Chargers had, in my opinion, the best NFL/AFL jersey to date in their conception.

    http://prod.static.c...
    http://www.hognation...
    http://www.profootba...
    http://www.profootba...

    Although I also love the addition of the gold pants:
    http://img.allposter...

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 2:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”388458″]San Diego Chargers had, in my opinion, the best NFL/AFL jersey to date in their conception.

    http://prod.static.c...
    http://www.hognation...
    http://www.profootba...
    http://www.profootba...

    Although I also love the addition of the gold pants:
    http://img.allposter...

    Original royal version was gorgeous, too.
    http://caimages.coll...

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 2:26 pm |

    LA Chargers were awfully nice, too.
    http://farm3.static....

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 2:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”388460″]LA Chargers were awfully nice, too.
    http://farm3.static....

    That’s ’60, ’61 and ’62.

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 2:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”388457″]Did we ever figure out who made those cleats Griese’s wearing in this photo?
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    guessing they’re not adidas…despite the apparent similarity

    also guessing, whoever made em got a real quick C&D from mr. dassler himself

    (the back behind griese, who clearly is wearing white adidas — that mercury?)

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388458″]San Diego Chargers had, in my opinion, the best NFL/AFL jersey to date in their conception.

    http://prod.static.c...
    http://www.hognation...
    http://www.profootba...
    http://www.profootba...

    Although I also love the addition of the gold pants:
    http://img.allposter...

    except that wasn’t the uniform they wore at conception

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 2:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”388462″][quote comment=”388457″]Did we ever figure out who made those cleats Griese’s wearing in this photo?
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    guessing they’re not adidas…despite the apparent similarity

    also guessing, whoever made em got a real quick C&D from mr. dassler himself

    (the back behind griese, who clearly is wearing white adidas — that mercury?)[/quote]

    Morris wasn’t a white shoe guy. Lotta white tape was his thing most of the time.
    Kiick wore white adidas, though.
    Number certainly appears to be a 2.
    He wore 21.

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 2:36 pm |

    to see what the chargers wore in 1960 and 61-62, look here

  • Andy | May 1, 2010 at 2:39 pm |

    Yeah I realized that, just couldn’t find photos. Just wanted to make the point that whatever they wore in earlier history is a lot better than what they’ve worn recently.

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 2:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”388464″][quote comment=”388462″][quote comment=”388457″]Did we ever figure out who made those cleats Griese’s wearing in this photo?
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    guessing they’re not adidas…despite the apparent similarity

    also guessing, whoever made em got a real quick C&D from mr. dassler himself

    (the back behind griese, who clearly is wearing white adidas — that mercury?)[/quote]

    Morris wasn’t a white shoe guy. Lotta white tape was his thing most of the time.
    Kiick wore white adidas, though.
    Number certainly appears to be a 2.
    He wore 21.[/quote]

    but he was 22 and wore adidas

    however, kiick was a white shoe guy (those don’t look to be adidas), and i can’t seem to find any pics of him wearing 3 stripes

    maybe it’s neither one

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 2:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”388466″]Yeah I realized that, just couldn’t find photos. Just wanted to make the point that whatever they wore in earlier history is a lot better than what they’ve worn recently.[/quote]

    In support of Andy’s contention, this was an exceptional design (’60 LA Chargers). Sort of the Colts unis “electrified”…
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 2:48 pm |

    i bet it’s paul warfield

    #42 and wore white adidas

  • StLMarty | May 1, 2010 at 2:56 pm |

    I hate the Derby.
    I have to go to a Derby party today, and I can’t afford the suits at Brooks’ Bros. Yet, I’ve always wanted to dress like Andrew Bernard.
    I am, however, bringing a toy pistol. I will be representing the guy who has to shoot any horse that breaks his leg.

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 3:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”388469″]i bet it’s paul warfield

    #42 and wore white adidas[/quote]

    Knew that. Didn’t think of him cuz that guy is pretty far “inside” the running play for a WR.

    And, yeah, guess Kiick did wear Puma more than adidas.

    It’s probably the tight end or something.
    Not Mandich (wrong number, I think).

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 3:39 pm |

    Packers at Dolphins, December 1971.
    TE was Marv Fleming, #80.
    He was a white shoe guy.

    —Ricko

  • StLMarty | May 1, 2010 at 3:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”388469″]i bet it’s paul warfield

    #42 and wore white adidas[/quote]
    I would wear Shula’s ensemble in a second.

  • StLMarty | May 1, 2010 at 3:47 pm |

    Banned?

  • flip | May 1, 2010 at 3:50 pm |

    I can appreciate the arguments for change, evolution, etc. But I agree with the observations for the Atlanta Falcons, Jacksonville Jaguars, San Diego Chargers, Buffalo Bills, Houston Astros, San Diego Padres, Seattle Seahawks, et. al.

    I’ll add the Boston Patriots 1.0 and 2.0 The tri-fold hat with numeral http://www.patriotsa... and Pat Patriot http://www.gasolinea... both were light years better than Flying Elvis.

    Houston Rockets http://www.tworvgyps...

    Milwaukee Bucks (loved the socks) http://multimedia.he...

    I like purple, but lakes are blue. Lakers unis are OK, but I loved the Los Angeles script that Elg wore. http://hoopedia.nba....

  • random reader | May 1, 2010 at 4:05 pm |

    Yankees pitcher David Robertson, who had been pitching high-cuffed this season and during the latter parts of last season, has gone back to the pajama-pant look. :(

    Apparently it might have something to do with his giving up 3 hits and 2 runs in just 0.1 IP against Baltimore on April 27.

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 4:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”388475″]I can appreciate the arguments for change, evolution, etc. But I agree with the observations for the Atlanta Falcons, Jacksonville Jaguars, San Diego Chargers, Buffalo Bills, Houston Astros, San Diego Padres, Seattle Seahawks, et. al.

    I’ll add the Boston Patriots 1.0 and 2.0 The tri-fold hat with numeral http://www.patriotsa... and Pat Patriot http://www.gasolinea... both were light years better than Flying Elvis.

    Houston Rockets http://www.tworvgyps...

    Milwaukee Bucks (loved the socks) http://multimedia.he...

    I like purple, but lakes are blue. Lakers unis are OK, but I loved the Los Angeles script that Elg wore. http://hoopedia.nba....

    That Laker color change was Jack Kent Cooke. He owned both the Lakers and Kings and “costumed” them in the same colors when his Forum opened. Called the purple “Forum Blue”. Now THERE was a stretch.

    Know how the Lakers ended up in L.A.? Yeah, they were having trouble finding a home arena in Minneapolis, but weren’t really for sale. Cooke called Laker owner Bob Short and asked for a number. Short picked something he thought was ludicrously high and said, “$500,000.” Cooke said, “Done.” And the Lakers were gone.

    Yes, only $500,000. Seems puny by today’s standards, doesn’t it.

    —Ricko

  • Michael Emody | May 1, 2010 at 4:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”388390″]
    And if the Twins were so desperate to lose the road pins, they could have just done this…
    http://farm5.static....
    …instead of wearing Brewer unis in navy and red (jeez, not even unique from the team right next door). Plus, it would have been a much more sensible complement to the homes, design-wise.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko-
    I was playing around with drawing a Twins road uni (I just can’t find enough ways to waste time…) that resembles the Minneapolis Millers road set with the fancy lettering. Honestly, though, they look pretty much like what you’ve got there, the old ones without pinstripes. The Twin patch came out nice, though.

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 4:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”388478″][quote comment=”388390″]
    And if the Twins were so desperate to lose the road pins, they could have just done this…
    http://farm5.static....
    …instead of wearing Brewer unis in navy and red (jeez, not even unique from the team right next door). Plus, it would have been a much more sensible complement to the homes, design-wise.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko-
    I was playing around with drawing a Twins road uni (I just can’t find enough ways to waste time…) that resembles the Minneapolis Millers road set with the fancy lettering. Honestly, though, they look pretty much like what you’ve got there, the old ones without pinstripes. The Twin patch came out nice, though.[/quote]

    any one of those (including ricko’s) is better than the road pins

    but i never liked the twins road font (no fan of the homes either)…of the four mike did, i like the one on the left best

    not sure what about the new roads (which i like A LOT) script (which i don’t particularly love) is wrong…maybe the fact that it seems too long, or maybe it’s the fact that the “tail” doesn’t attach to anything…or maybe the fact that “minnesota” doesn’t look good rendered in script period

    no matter what…losing the “M” cap was a plus… the “TC” is just way better

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 4:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388478″][quote comment=”388390″]
    And if the Twins were so desperate to lose the road pins, they could have just done this…
    http://farm5.static....
    …instead of wearing Brewer unis in navy and red (jeez, not even unique from the team right next door). Plus, it would have been a much more sensible complement to the homes, design-wise.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko-
    I was playing around with drawing a Twins road uni (I just can’t find enough ways to waste time…) that resembles the Minneapolis Millers road set with the fancy lettering. Honestly, though, they look pretty much like what you’ve got there, the old ones without pinstripes. The Twin patch came out nice, though.[/quote]

    Red lettering on road is good. Don’t get why the “Minnesota” on the new set is navy and the numbers are red. Isn’t that way at home.

    But, even if stirrups showed anymore (and they haven’t for almost 40 years…for most teams), I’d have trouble with striped socks on the Twins. Not that I dislike stripes, just that they have never worn striped socks in Minnesota. In D.C. before they got here, yes, but not since. So they’re a “solid socks” team. In my head, anyway. Sort of like I can’t imagine striped stirrups on, for example, the Yankees, or the Dodgers, or the Mets. 50+ years does kind of establish a “look,” even if your team did happen to wear stripes once when Calvin Coolidge was in the White House.

    Giants, too. I’ll be 64 this summer and Zito’s stripes are the only the second season while I’ve been alive that a Giant has worn striped socks. Not that my life is the touchstone, mind you, not at all, only that that’s a helluva lot of seasons with solid socks.

    Just, y’know, sayin’. :)

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 4:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”388479″][quote comment=”388478″][quote comment=”388390″]
    And if the Twins were so desperate to lose the road pins, they could have just done this…
    http://farm5.static....
    …instead of wearing Brewer unis in navy and red (jeez, not even unique from the team right next door). Plus, it would have been a much more sensible complement to the homes, design-wise.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko-
    I was playing around with drawing a Twins road uni (I just can’t find enough ways to waste time…) that resembles the Minneapolis Millers road set with the fancy lettering. Honestly, though, they look pretty much like what you’ve got there, the old ones without pinstripes. The Twin patch came out nice, though.[/quote]

    any one of those (including ricko’s) is better than the road pins

    but i never liked the twins road font (no fan of the homes either)…of the four mike did, i like the one on the left best

    not sure what about the new roads (which i like A LOT) script (which i don’t particularly love) is wrong…maybe the fact that it seems too long, or maybe it’s the fact that the “tail” doesn’t attach to anything…or maybe the fact that “minnesota” doesn’t look good rendered in script period

    no matter what…losing the “M” cap was a plus… the “TC” is just way better[/quote]

    Twins ditched the “M” hats four or five years ago (or something like that, been a while, anyway).

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm |

    Make that…

    “…even if STRIPED stirrups showed anymore (and they haven’t for almost 40 years…for most teams)”

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 4:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”388481″]

    Twins ditched the “M” hats four or five years ago (or something like that, been a while, anyway).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    not for good…they NOW wear it with their blue alt, and still wore it with their roadies until this year

    but i know what you mean…they stopped wearing it full time in 2002 (2001 was last year it was the only cap — they brought back the TC for the home uni in 2002)

    interesting switch this year…in 2002, they wore the “TC” with the blue alt, but now they only wear the “M” with the blue alt (at least according to creamer), which i believe is correct

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 4:47 pm |

    Thought I’d check.
    In 1970, just six MLB teams still had striped stirrups.
    And by 1970 virtually none of the A’s wore them so the stirrups showed. So for all intents and purposes, only five teams typically had striped legs.
    And the number when down after that.
    http://exhibits.base...

    They’ve been gone a long time, that’s all.

    —Ricko

  • Jim Smith | May 1, 2010 at 4:51 pm |

    Good call on the Saints old unis.

    Loved that darker old gold in those.

    They were spectacular, IMO, the only problem was they lacked consistency with number sizes and color match, making the Saints appear to be barnstormers at times.

    Wish they could have kept the black helmet from 1970, plus the old larger sized fleur-de-lis on the helmet looked way better than today’s smaller logo.

    BTW Ricko, Jack Kent Cooke LOVED the color purple but HATED the word purple, so he called the Lakers color “Forum Blue”.

    Rich folks can be soooo opinionated.

  • Thomas | May 1, 2010 at 4:52 pm |

    I think the LA Kings improved their unis when they went to the “Raider-esque” uniforms. I definitely prefer them to the Laker-style ones and the current Sacramento King-style eyesores. Especially since it’s probably not a good idea for an LA based team to have their unis resemble the Sacramento Kings, due to their rivalry with the LA Lakers (though it has probably died down somewhat with the Sacramento Kings rebuilding).

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 4:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”388483″][quote comment=”388481″]

    Twins ditched the “M” hats four or five years ago (or something like that, been a while, anyway).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    not for good…they NOW wear it with their blue alt, and still wore it with their roadies until this year

    but i know what you mean…they stopped wearing it full time in 2002 (2001 was last year it was the only cap — they brought back the TC for the home uni in 2002)

    interesting switch this year…in 2002, they wore the “TC” with the blue alt, but now they only wear the “M” with the blue alt (at least according to creamer), which i believe is correct[/quote]

    They must have brought it back. There was at least one season recently when it was gone altogether. Couldn’t even find one in a store. I remember because I liked it being gone, and because I thought I’d better pick one up because it was gone…and there none to be found.

    They probably had a drop in hat sales.

    Just shows how you get used to things on the team you see most often. I didn’t even notice when it returned.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 4:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”388485″]Good call on the Saints old unis.

    Loved that darker old gold in those.

    They were spectacular, IMO, the only problem was they lacked consistency with number sizes and color match, making the Saints appear to be barnstormers at times.

    Wish they could have kept the black helmet from 1970, plus the old larger sized fleur-de-lis on the helmet looked way better than today’s smaller logo.

    BTW Ricko, Jack Kent Cooke LOVED the color purple but HATED the word purple, so he called the Lakers color “Forum Blue”.

    Rich folks can be soooo opinionated.[/quote]

    Not to mention write their own reality. Or so they believe.
    (talked about “Forum Blue” earlier).

    —Ricko

  • Jeremiah | May 1, 2010 at 5:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”388447″][quote comment=”388397″]Also, the Black/Silver Kings were actually quite respectable.[/quote]

    More than respectable – definitive, imho.[/quote]

    As a long-time Kings fan, I completely agree. I think that’s why I prefer their current alt to their regular look. I was glad they wore those so often this season.

  • LarryB | May 1, 2010 at 5:12 pm |

    Great column today. Some good points made about the original team uniforms.

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 5:26 pm |

    maybe i’d like the twins road script more if they had gone with this

    (didn’t add a blue outline, but that might actually make it pop even more)

  • Terry D. | May 1, 2010 at 6:16 pm |

    Just saw a rerun of Yesterday’s Southern Miss-Tulane baseball game. They were talking about Tulane’s Stl. Cardinal-esque uniforms. They use pelicans for the birds, and the thing that weirded me out was everything was tackle-twill. The Cards’ uniforms are chain-stitched. Weird…

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 6:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    indeed…

    that’s a tough one…but gave the late JK a shot

  • JGoodrich | May 1, 2010 at 7:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    Is it just me or does that “loop” on Kemp’s left arm look like it’s truncated, ala Dwight Freeney’s current uni?

  • not Osama | May 1, 2010 at 7:25 pm |

    Ricko the Griese cleats are Wilson.

  • M.Princip | May 1, 2010 at 7:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”388485″]

    BTW Ricko, Jack Kent Cooke LOVED the color purple but HATED the word purple, so he called the Lakers color “Forum Blue”.

    Rich folks can be soooo opinionated.[/quote]

    Yea, the word purple sucked, however, RalJohn….heh heh I really do miss Jack Kent Cooke.

  • M.Princip | May 1, 2010 at 7:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”388493″][quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    indeed…

    that’s a tough one…but gave the late JK a shot[/quote]

    Again, I can’t see this pic. As Ricko would say, I am Flickr-challenged.

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 7:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”388497″][quote comment=”388493″][quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    indeed…

    that’s a tough one…but gave the late JK a shot[/quote]

    Again, I can’t see this pic. As Ricko would say, I am Flickr-challenged.[/quote]

    Really nice job. Does need a red edge on the numbers, though.

    —Ricko

  • Michael Emody | May 1, 2010 at 7:46 pm |

    Well, I ran some errands, came back and saw a challenge. Blue outline, you say? viola! Actually, I had to redraw it, so it was sort of an exercise in quick work.
    And Ricko, you’re right about the stripes. I think I had stripes on the mind when I drew it, would have been better just to omit them.
    BTW, today’s topic, “Right the first time.” Excellent.

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 7:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”388494″][quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    Is it just me or does that “loop” on Kemp’s left arm look like it’s truncated, ala Dwight Freeney’s current uni?[/quote]

    Most loops weren’t full loops back then.
    Some were. Vast majority were not.
    Just went much farther down into the armpit than the current version.
    Usually they stopped at a side panel for range-of-movement’s sake because fabrics weren’t quite so stretchy in those days.

    —Ricko

  • doc | May 1, 2010 at 8:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”388409″]How are the Bills not included on this list? I figured that would be a given.[/quote]
    The original Bills unis were a copy of the Lions unis, with navy instad of Honalulu blue; the Bills owner is from Detroit.

    Have to agree about the Sabres- classic,simple w/o being boring and distinctive with a great logo. Each subsequent redo has been worse-from the goathead to the buffaslug, and now the reebok version of the original, with grey pitstains, weird stripes, and navy blue instead of royal. What is it with navy? It’s become the new BFBS

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 8:21 pm |

    How ’bout this?

    Stretched the type vertically to give it more heft (the “M” more than the “innesota”). That allowed for elimination of the underline thingee that is supposed to me mindful of the same thing under “win” on the homes, I suppose.

    Still think “Minnesota” should be red edged in navy but this seems, I dunno, stronger to me, more substantial, that what they’re wearing now.
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • Mike Colvin | May 1, 2010 at 8:27 pm |

    I appreciated the ‘Dead Flowers’ reference at the end Phil. Nice touch!

    Mike

  • Teebz | May 1, 2010 at 8:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”388441″]How are the Philadelphia Flyers not on that list? They really haven’t changed the jerseys very much since their inception, and their logo is COMPLETELY UNCHANGED. I don’t know if any other teams with even 20 years of existence can say that, i mean not a single tweak! No alternate logos either! And this is coming from a Penguins fan![/quote]

    I disagree. Unless, of course, gray/silver was always a part of the colour scheme.

  • Nick | May 1, 2010 at 8:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”388386″]I have to strongly disagree with 3 of those so-called “Fall From Grace” uniforms. The current Dolphins, Saints, and Cavaliers uniforms are drastic improvements to the ones in the links provided in this article.[/quote]

    No Way in the world for the Saints and Dolphins. The originals far better than the current.

  • Jet | May 1, 2010 at 8:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”388504″][quote comment=”388441″]How are the Philadelphia Flyers not on that list? They really haven’t changed the jerseys very much since their inception, and their logo is COMPLETELY UNCHANGED. I don’t know if any other teams with even 20 years of existence can say that, i mean not a single tweak! No alternate logos either! And this is coming from a Penguins fan![/quote]

    I disagree. Unless, of course, gray/silver was always a part of the colour scheme.[/quote]

    right on, I meant to bring this up also.

    -Jet

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 8:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”388502″]How ’bout this?

    Stretched the type vertically to give it more heft (the “M” more than the “innesota”). That allowed for elimination of the underline thingee that is supposed to me mindful of the same thing under “win” on the homes, I suppose.

    Still think “Minnesota” should be red edged in navy but this seems, I dunno, stronger to me, more substantial, that what they’re wearing now.
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Although, considering I beleive there are many,many times when “less is more” and that 2010 is the only time in the history of the franchise (Washington and Minnesota) that the team has had multi-color trim at neck, sleeve ends and down pantlegs other than during the poweder blue doubleknits era…I think I’d like version “C” even better…
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • Nick | May 1, 2010 at 8:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”388453″]This is interesting. From SI’s 1963 Pro Football Preview edition.
    1. First Jets (witness the odd Titans helmet re-painted white.
    2. Nice pants, Weeb.
    3. And a kelly green (I’d wager) sideline line hat from antiquity.
    (Included the story, too, both for fun and confirmation of date)
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Does that painted “Jets” helmet even have a facemask?

    Thank Heavens Sonny Werblin wasn’t a cheapskate and eventually sprung for ney helmets and unis – could you imagine painted helmets getting dark Blue again as the season wore on and they lost their new Jets paint!

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”388508″][quote comment=”388453″]This is interesting. From SI’s 1963 Pro Football Preview edition.
    1. First Jets (witness the odd Titans helmet re-painted white.
    2. Nice pants, Weeb.
    3. And a kelly green (I’d wager) sideline line hat from antiquity.
    (Included the story, too, both for fun and confirmation of date)
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Does that painted “Jets” helmet even have a facemask?

    Thank Heavens Sonny Werblin wasn’t a cheapskate and eventually sprung for ney helmets and unis – could you imagine painted helmets getting dark Blue again as the season wore on and they lost their new Jets paint![/quote]

    Don Maynard continued to wear his old, repainted Titans helmet for all of ’63 (this from a preseason game before the green jet plane logo was added). He switched to the standard team-issue helmet in ’64.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko

  • Nick | May 1, 2010 at 9:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”388485″]Good call on the Saints old unis.

    Loved that darker old gold in those.

    They were spectacular, IMO, the only problem was they lacked consistency with number sizes and color match, making the Saints appear to be barnstormers at times.

    Wish they could have kept the black helmet from 1970, plus the old larger sized fleur-de-lis on the helmet looked way better than today’s smaller logo.

    BTW Ricko, Jack Kent Cooke LOVED the color purple but HATED the word purple, so he called the Lakers color “Forum Blue”.

    Rich folks can be soooo opinionated.[/quote]

    The original Saints were great. The numeral matches got mixed as the season wore on and they could not get the same skinny numeral/oversized trim that they were able to get with the original set.

    The Saints Black helmet looks great on paper, and on your mantle piece, but it would look not-so-well in the Superdome where the lighting makes darker helmets look way too bland and blah. I’ll take the original Gold helmet with the larger fleur de lis.

    weird fact – the original 1967 Saints game jerseys had Gold numerals on both Black and White jerseys, with the oversized trim – White trim for Black jerseys, and Black trim on White jerseys. The Saints 1967 jerseys are the only jerseys from that era that I have ever seen – and I have sen HUNDREDS of different teams’ jerseys from that era – that have a sewn on numeral trim with the actual numeral silk screened OVER and on top of the sewn on numeral trim. the Saints Hall of Fame in the Superdome has Steve Stonebreaker’s #37 jersey from 1967 – and that method of numbering is very unique. For a bit I thought it may have been a protoytype, but the jersey is obviously game worn and very used.

    Just a thought – any ideas on the numeral style and has anyone ever seen it before The only place I have ever seen it was on the three color numerals sewn on the “almost authentic” Cowboys “Double Star” jerseys sold in malls back in the Aikman/Irvin/Emmitt era.

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 9:05 pm |

    Wasn’t so much that Harry Wismer of the Titans was cheap, he just didn’t have the money. He was a well-known sportscaster who never could attract the truly deep-pocketed partners needed. Then Werblin came along and bought the whole magilla.

    Start-up leagues always have trouble finding people with the bucks to take the initial hit in New York (just look at the history of every one of them). Seems like New York money always waits and sees, lets things develop first.

    Notable exception: Donald Trump in the USFL. Although he was not the original owner of the Generals, he come in far earlier than normal in NY. In the long run, that didn’t really work out so well for the USFL. Was a curse disguised as a blessing. Between his personality and the rest of the league’s joy at having a truly wealthy NY market owner, he was given way too much attention and, as a result, clout.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 9:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”388510″][quote comment=”388485″]Good call on the Saints old unis.

    Loved that darker old gold in those.

    They were spectacular, IMO, the only problem was they lacked consistency with number sizes and color match, making the Saints appear to be barnstormers at times.

    Wish they could have kept the black helmet from 1970, plus the old larger sized fleur-de-lis on the helmet looked way better than today’s smaller logo.

    BTW Ricko, Jack Kent Cooke LOVED the color purple but HATED the word purple, so he called the Lakers color “Forum Blue”.

    Rich folks can be soooo opinionated.[/quote]

    The original Saints were great. The numeral matches got mixed as the season wore on and they could not get the same skinny numeral/oversized trim that they were able to get with the original set.

    The Saints Black helmet looks great on paper, and on your mantle piece, but it would look not-so-well in the Superdome where the lighting makes darker helmets look way too bland and blah. I’ll take the original Gold helmet with the larger fleur de lis.

    weird fact – the original 1967 Saints game jerseys had Gold numerals on both Black and White jerseys, with the oversized trim – White trim for Black jerseys, and Black trim on White jerseys. The Saints 1967 jerseys are the only jerseys from that era that I have ever seen – and I have sen HUNDREDS of different teams’ jerseys from that era – that have a sewn on numeral trim with the actual numeral silk screened OVER and on top of the sewn on numeral trim. the Saints Hall of Fame in the Superdome has Steve Stonebreaker’s #37 jersey from 1967 – and that method of numbering is very unique. For a bit I thought it may have been a protoytype, but the jersey is obviously game worn and very used.

    Just a thought – any ideas on the numeral style and has anyone ever seen it before The only place I have ever seen it was on the three color numerals sewn on the “almost authentic” Cowboys “Double Star” jerseys sold in malls back in the Aikman/Irvin/Emmitt era.[/quote]

    Someone was addressing something similar to that here in the past couple weeks, but I’ll be damned if I can remember what team he was referring to.

    —Ricko

  • jesse | May 1, 2010 at 9:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”388499″]Well, I ran some errands, came back and saw a challenge. Blue outline, you say? viola! Actually, I had to redraw it, so it was sort of an exercise in quick work.
    And Ricko, you’re right about the stripes. I think I had stripes on the mind when I drew it, would have been better just to omit them.
    BTW, today’s topic, “Right the first time.” Excellent.[/quote]
    Pure joy right there.

  • jesse | May 1, 2010 at 9:17 pm |

    Nats, let’s lose the Fuddrucker/Radom font for numbers, actually altogther, and the white halo on the roads. Please, I mean really guys.

  • M.Princip | May 1, 2010 at 9:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”388510″][quote comment=”388485″]Good call on the Saints old unis.

    Loved that darker old gold in those.

    They were spectacular, IMO, the only problem was they lacked consistency with number sizes and color match, making the Saints appear to be barnstormers at times.

    Wish they could have kept the black helmet from 1970, plus the old larger sized fleur-de-lis on the helmet looked way better than today’s smaller logo.

    BTW Ricko, Jack Kent Cooke LOVED the color purple but HATED the word purple, so he called the Lakers color “Forum Blue”.

    Rich folks can be soooo opinionated.[/quote]

    The original Saints were great. The numeral matches got mixed as the season wore on and they could not get the same skinny numeral/oversized trim that they were able to get with the original set.

    The Saints Black helmet looks great on paper, and on your mantle piece, but it would look not-so-well in the Superdome where the lighting makes darker helmets look way too bland and blah. I’ll take the original Gold helmet with the larger fleur de lis.

    weird fact – the original 1967 Saints game jerseys had Gold numerals on both Black and White jerseys, with the oversized trim – White trim for Black jerseys, and Black trim on White jerseys. The Saints 1967 jerseys are the only jerseys from that era that I have ever seen – and I have sen HUNDREDS of different teams’ jerseys from that era – that have a sewn on numeral trim with the actual numeral silk screened OVER and on top of the sewn on numeral trim. the Saints Hall of Fame in the Superdome has Steve Stonebreaker’s #37 jersey from 1967 – and that method of numbering is very unique. For a bit I thought it may have been a protoytype, but the jersey is obviously game worn and very used.

    Just a thought – any ideas on the numeral style and has anyone ever seen it before The only place I have ever seen it was on the three color numerals sewn on the “almost authentic” Cowboys “Double Star” jerseys sold in malls back in the Aikman/Irvin/Emmitt era.[/quote]

    Nice writeup Nick. I just have to say, I absolutely love the Saints unis back in the day. I agree about the black helmets in the dome. Would remind me of what the Falcons are dealin’ with today. That Falcon red however, that’s nice. The thing that irks me the most nowadays has to be the heavy black border, er stroke around the fleur de lis helmet decal. Simply, overkill.

  • rpm | May 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm |

    i was working hoops today, and i still have some stuff to get through, but thanks ricko, y’all really took the sting out of that day, thanks.

  • interlockingtc | May 1, 2010 at 9:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”388507″][quote comment=”388502″]How ’bout this?

    Stretched the type vertically to give it more heft (the “M” more than the “innesota”). That allowed for elimination of the underline thingee that is supposed to me mindful of the same thing under “win” on the homes, I suppose.

    Still think “Minnesota” should be red edged in navy but this seems, I dunno, stronger to me, more substantial, that what they’re wearing now.
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Although, considering I beleive there are many,many times when “less is more” and that 2010 is the only time in the history of the franchise (Washington and Minnesota) that the team has had multi-color trim at neck, sleeve ends and down pantlegs other than during the poweder blue doubleknits era…I think I’d like version “C” even better…
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Yup. “C” is the best here.

  • LI Phil | May 1, 2010 at 9:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”388498″][quote comment=”388497″][quote comment=”388493″][quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    indeed…

    that’s a tough one…but gave the late JK a shot[/quote]

    Again, I can’t see this pic. As Ricko would say, I am Flickr-challenged.[/quote]

    Really nice job. Does need a red edge on the numbers, though.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    better?

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 9:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388516″]i was working hoops today, and i still have some stuff to get through, but thanks ricko, y’all really took the sting out of that day, thanks.[/quote]

    Shucks, t’weren’t nuthin’. Was Phil’s idee to rerun it. I was only cogitatin’ on such a thing, but he brung it up, so that’s howcum.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 1, 2010 at 9:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”388518″][quote comment=”388498″][quote comment=”388497″][quote comment=”388493″][quote comment=”388423″]Ah yes, those AFL Bills. This classic shot of Jack Kemp is in dire need of a colorization. Simply, an awesome shot.

    http://www.mkrob.com...

    indeed…

    that’s a tough one…but gave the late JK a shot[/quote]

    Again, I can’t see this pic. As Ricko would say, I am Flickr-challenged.[/quote]

    Really nice job. Does need a red edge on the numbers, though.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    better?[/quote]

    Yup. Sorta a right-handed Tim Tebow jump pass there, huh. Number 15 and everything.

  • Jeremiah M. | May 1, 2010 at 11:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”388419″][quote comment=”388409″]How are the Bills not included on this list? I figured that would be a given.[/quote]

    Probably because this was Bills first uni (’60 and ’61; photo from ’61 vs. Texans, ballcarrier is Dewey Bohling, his only season with the team; he’d been a NY Titan in ’60).
    http://farm4.static....
    Royal blue instead of Honolulu Blue and had numbers on helmets, otherwise almost exactly same as Detroit Lions at the time.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Ricko even those are better than the garbage they’re wearing now!

  • Tony | May 1, 2010 at 11:42 pm |

    I noticed the center ‘football’ stripe on Craig Ramsay’s helmet in the Sabres pic. I forgot about that. If I remember correctly he got a concussion and wore the helmet before the NHL mandate. Have there been any other such stripeage of NHL helmets?

  • JTH | May 2, 2010 at 12:33 am |

    [quote comment=”388522″]I noticed the center ‘football’ stripe on Craig Ramsay’s helmet in the Sabres pic. I forgot about that. If I remember correctly he got a concussion and wore the helmet before the NHL mandate. Have there been any other such stripeage of NHL helmets?[/quote]
    I could’ve sworn I’d seen a picture of Stan Mikita with something vaguely similar but I’ll be damned if I can find it now.

    I’m wondering if it wasn’t this photo and I mistook the glare on the helmet for a stripe.

    On the bright side, I did stumble across this during my search.

  • rpm | May 2, 2010 at 12:42 am |

    [quote comment=”388523″][quote comment=”388522″]I noticed the center ‘football’ stripe on Craig Ramsay’s helmet in the Sabres pic. I forgot about that. If I remember correctly he got a concussion and wore the helmet before the NHL mandate. Have there been any other such stripeage of NHL helmets?[/quote]
    I could’ve sworn I’d seen a picture of Stan Mikita with something vaguely similar but I’ll be damned if I can find it now.

    I’m wondering if it wasn’t this photo and I mistook the glare on the helmet for a stripe.

    On the bright side, I did stumble across this during my search.[/quote]

    if only it was a 48, and the closing bid could be around 20 bucks.

  • rpm | May 2, 2010 at 12:47 am |

    by the way, while it is still saturday in chicago, it needs a hose, and i hate to say it, but it somehow needs eight stripes.

  • =bg= | May 2, 2010 at 1:22 am |

    [quote comment=”388413″]The Saints have deteriorated (not much, but clearly deteriorated) in every change, as have the hated Raiders – seriously, their original unis were stunning.
    The Falcons have deteriorated, especially in the most recent change.
    The Bills’ last change was nearly half as bad as the Falcons.
    The Vikes last shift was another stinker.

    The Angels should get a pass for dumping the worst major pro sports uni ever.[/quote]

    The worst ever? Not a chance. The Canucks yellow V wins hands down.

  • Bill Scheft | May 4, 2010 at 5:53 pm |

    One note about LA Kings: Two years in, they added yellow/gold pants to the yellow/gold home jersey, making them the only NHL team to have home and away pants. Can’t think of any team before or since, not counting third/alt jersey combos.

  • Bill Scheft | May 4, 2010 at 6:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”388522″]I noticed the center ‘football’ stripe on Craig Ramsay’s helmet in the Sabres pic. I forgot about that. If I remember correctly he got a concussion and wore the helmet before the NHL mandate. Have there been any other such stripeage of NHL helmets?[/quote]
    That was a Lange variation on the “Mikita helmet”

  • Bill Scheft | May 4, 2010 at 6:09 pm |

    I’m pretty sure I saw few Mikita helmet guys wear the stripe back then. Mike Foligno (Sabres), Dave Langevin (Isles), Robbie Ftorek and Marc Tardif (Nords).