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

True Colors - Volume III (Part A)

colorization tutorial hed 5-22-11

By Phil Hecken

Almost every weekend, I publish a great feature called, “Colorize This!” which features the colorization efforts of the Uni Watch readership. It’s been going strong for six months or so now, but lately it seems that the colorizations come from two fantastic artists, George Chilvers and Gary Chanko, the “G&G Boys.” Back in January, I featured George in this wonderful interview, in which George gave several explanations of his techniques. They were great, but they were really more “suggestions” and “here’s what I do’s” than teaching, and that was fantastic.

I *tried* to give you guys a very basic tutorial many months ago, and THE Jeff Provo also helped out with his own tricks. Many of you readers began sending in your own colorizations in the months that followed.

But while others continue to send in their efforts, many who once participated have seemed to slide back. I discussed this with George and Gary, and we all seemed to think that this may have been due to the fact that Gary & George consistently put forth such great efforts, others may have been a little reticent to have their work showcased next to the Gary & George’s herculean efforts. I thought it might be nice to have a tutorial on colorization, not by me — but by the masters of the art — so today, I’m pleased to present a truly well-done, step-by-step guide to colorization, by Gary Chanko. It’s actually the first of two parts. After a brief introduction by Gary, the step-by-step tutorial will begin — and it is AMAZING. I hope you folks will take a look and give the colorizations a whirl. OK? OK!

Here’s Gary:

~~~

Colorization Tutorial, Part 1: Coloring Vintage Black & White Sports Photos
Gary P. Chanko

Several weeks ago, during an email exchange with Phil, I suggested developing a colorization (colourisation for friends across the pond and in Oz) tutorial to spur additional participation in “Colorize This!” The thinking was there are likely many readers that would like to try their hand but were hesitant for lack of know-how.

I had only started colorizing just a few months ago. My knowledge about digital image editing was based on a few years of editing my own digital photography. I had some experience with software tools for editing but certainly wasn’t an expert. Rather than add color to black & white images, I often was removing background color or converting the color to black & white.

So I wanted the tutorial to focus on the needs of similar folks that had some basic skills with using image editing software and just needed some step-by-step guidance to get started. I wanted the tutorial to be detailed, yet easy to follow enough for anyone to follow.

I believe the objectives were met. After completing tutorial you should have the skill set to colorize any digital black & white image. Not just vintage sports photos, but those of family and friends. Imagine surprising Grandma with a color version of her High School Senior picture.

Good Luck,
Gary

~~~

Thanks Gary. Everyone ready to begin?

I now draw your attention to Gary’s Colorization Tutorial, which is a google doc of a PDF created by Gary specifically for this project. If anyone would like me to E-mail them the actual PDF, drop me a line and I’ll send along a copy.

Next weekend I’ll be back with Gary and the second half of his tutorial.

~~~~~~~~~~

Benchies HeaderBenchies

by Rick Pearson

~~~

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be”…

5-22-11 s-strap

And your full size, in case the above is too small.

~~~~~~~~~~

all sport uni tweaksUni Tweaks

We have another new set of tweaks today.

If you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

Remember, if possible, try to keep your descriptions to ~50 words (give or take) per tweak. You guys have been great a keeping to that, and it’s much appreciated!

And so, lets begin:

~~~

We start with Sean O’Malley, who followed up on a Rolls Reuss suggestion:

Phil:

Somebody threw out this suggestion and here it is!

this

or

this.

Sean OMalley

~~~

Next up is Paul Hovey, who has a twist on two popular avocations on Uni Watch, a “DIY/Tweak”. Dig:

Hello Phil,

I’m not exactly sure if this qualifies as a DIY or tweak, but here they are anyway. My three tweaks are the results of asking myself a few questions:

What if today’s Padres color scheme met the 1984 home jersey? The name might have looked better in navy blue, but in ’84 the 3rd color on the front (the final outline color) was used as the name, so I kept that the same.

What if the Padres road jersey colors from the ’90s met today’s road jersey? It looks like today’s road jersey, except for the orange drop shadow on the front and additional orange outline on the back number.

What if today’s Padres had a road-specific alternate jersey? The back would but identical to the current alternate.

I made these jerseys a few years ago, as evidence by the Greene and Hoffman no longer playing for the team. I just put my own number on the alternate. I got the jerseys from Eastbay.com and customized them at the sports store I work at in San Diego. The logos are made of tackle twill and sewn down, just like the (most of the) pros.

Thanks a lot for checking out my work

-Paul Hovey

~~~

And finally, we have Paul Barrett, who sent in his concept before the new uni was unveiled — but it’s still good:

In honor of the Wizards unveiling the 2011-12 uni set in a few weeks, I thought I’d send it what I put together for them. I was (clearly) inspired by the old bullets unis with some updated blue and striping changes.

Paul Barrett

~~~

Nice job, tweakers. Back with more next weekend.

~~~~~~~~~~

cubsawks Back to 1918?

Well, the BoSox and the Cubs threw back, in more ways than one, to “1918” yesterday evening in Boston. Yes, even though they put up old logos on the board, there’s just something so evilly corporate about it all that it was just a decidedly modern feel.

That didn’t mean they didn’t try to replicate the old tyme unis. Sadly, and for the most part, they failed.

Not that it was their fault, but the Sawks looked like milkmen, with their plain white uniforms. Of course, they did wear red sleeves and socks, which would have been great, except they should have looked like this.

Oh, and the corporate cleats and Majestic makers marks on the sleeve and ass were a nice touch too.

The Cubs…well, the Cubs looked bit better, except almost none of the players had a clue how to wear their socks. They should have looked like this.

Add to the fact that both teams wore #OB (which they did not have in 1918), except, as Majestic always seems to do, the put the numbers too low on the back. They also made them in a generic block font instead of the more classic font worn by each team. Mystifying.

Hey, at least they seemed to get the Cubs logo correct. I suppose it was a nice effort, and a cool idea, and it was interesting to at least see Majestic try. But seeing stuff like this sure didn’t make me think about 1918.

~~~~~~~~~~

-Hats by New Era.
-Jerseys and pants by Majestic.
-Socks by Twin City Knitting.
-Apathy by Bud Selig.

— Terry “Simply Moono” Duroncelet

 

171 comments to True Colors – Volume III (Part A)

  • Shayne M | May 22, 2011 at 7:17 am |

    A little harsh on the throw back uni’s. It was a geat concept and it was executed quite nicely considering nobody was at those games back in 1918. Watching the pre-game on FOX and Mitch Williams made the comment about he did not mind the throwback uni’s as a player as long as they were made with today’s materials otherwise they weren’t too fun to wear. Change and progress happens and I can live with sponsorship on the field, fences and even the manufacturers mark on uni’s and shoes just as long as MLB mandates the use of stirrups.

    • The Red Dog | May 22, 2011 at 9:29 am |

      Uh – wasn’t Fenway’s fence totally covered with advertising in the old days? If anything they should have painted more logos on the green monster.

    • RS Rogers | May 22, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

      Exactly. The point isn’t to wear century-old uniforms. The point is to wear modern uniforms that look like the team’s old unis. Considered in terms of what a throwback game is, rather than what we obsessives might wish it to be, the Cubs/Sawx was easily a B-plus throwback event. We’ve all seen better, but this was well above average in conception and execution.

      And, sure, a lot of players don’t know how to wear a throwback uni properly. But that’s because they also don’t know how to wear a regular uni properly, so you can’t hold that against the throwback game, the manufacturers, or even the commish.

      • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm |

        I agree that the logos on the unis and walls are fine. But to say that this was B+ is not true.

        THE ONLY distinguishing part of the Sox uni were the socks, which they completely fucked up. At least the cubs got the socks right, too bad the players had no idea how to wear them.

        C at best. (C is supposed to be the average, and this throwback was – above all – average)

    • MCNS | May 25, 2011 at 3:49 pm |

      I liked the idea but the Sox’ look would have come off better if they had worn the short-billed caps from that era. http://www.dugout-me...

      As it was they did look like milkmen, wearing New Era homey hats. More hip hop than Hippo Vaughan.

      Maybe for these turn-back-the-clock events they could come back with uniforms that “evoke” the old style rather than try (and) fail to exactly match it. The Bruins Winter Classic sweaters, for example, achieved a great throwback feel by incorporating elements from different old-school uniforms.

      The Sox might have looked better the other night if their white caps had a red bill (from the ’20s if not 1918) or a little red sock (from 1931). This would have evoked the era better than the total blankness of the ’18 unis (with the hip hop hats).

  • The Jeff | May 22, 2011 at 7:39 am |

    So, uh, who are the Ubs?

    /someone had to say it

    • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 1:44 pm |

      boooooooooooooooooooooo!

    • DJ | May 22, 2011 at 11:50 pm |

      No, it didn’t have to be said.

  • HBC | May 22, 2011 at 7:58 am |

    I was at Sox-Cubs last night. Sox uniforms looked stupid. The only ornamentation was the Majsetic logo. From the back they just looked like the regular unis. Cubs looked a lot better.

  • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 7:59 am |

    For those not old enough to remember…
    http://njmonthly.com...

  • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 8:23 am |

    Pretty sure we can’t lay the blame for the Cubs socks on the Cubs players specifically.

    Knowing what we know about stirrups of the 1918 era, and looking at this…
    http://exhibits.base...

    …we probably can reason that the actual socks were blue with a one broad light-colored stripe…and the typical light-colored stirrup attached to the very bottom.

    Okay, this is lot of supposition, of course, but it makes sense. What was passed out the Cubs looks a football-style gray full tube sock with a couple navy stripes at the top, separated by a cream stripe.

    As to the stripes being lower on some players…

    Quite likely there were two different socks available for them last night. One “regular” and one with a much longer “tube” portion. This is typical with such socks, especially in football, because of the varying height and physique of the players. The “regular” probably came fairly close to approximating the 1918 look. The longer one had way too much tube for a baseball application.

    However, it looks like almost none of the Cubs opted for the shorter verson.

    It’d be easier if I just drew a diagram, I suppose. :)

  • Mark in Shiga | May 22, 2011 at 9:15 am |

    Great to see that it’s no longer a one-man crusade for me to get Majestic to stop sewing the numbers too low!

    Lowrie, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Cubs coaches Bob Dernier and Ivan DeJesus… just about everybody with the exception of new Boston acquisition Morales looked awful; I can’t help but wonder if that last guy had a jersey sewn by someone other than Majestic. Maybe a local Boston-area shop pressed into service when they suddenly got the new player? The Mets have a shop that does this; I forget his name, but he was feature here a while back.

    I tried Photoshopping the number back into place on one of Tim’s screengrabs. An amateur effort, and I might even have placed it one pixel too high, but it looks much better than the actual jersey looked:

    http://www.flickr.co...

    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 9:32 am |

      Amazing, isn’t it, that people IN the uniform business don’t know that numbers were moved to a lower position when NOB came along.

      And that when making a non NOB uni, the numbers should be placed in the former higher position. Even if it weren’t historically accurate, it so obviously LOOKS better.

      Then again, what Twin City Knitting doesn’t know about stripes, stirrups and their relationship to each other would fill a boxcar.

      • timmy b | May 22, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

        Complete swing into another sport, but I did – and still do – LOVE when the back numbers on hockey jerseys in the early 70’s NHL vintage were set way down low.

        Remember seeing the clips of the ’75 SCF when the Flyers played the Sabres at the Aud and it looked like the top of the #’s started mid-bsck and came down to just an inch or two above the hem stripes.

        Getting a bit melancholy now…

      • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

        “…would fill a boxcar.”

        Really, Ricko? Dating ourselves a bit with that phrasing, aren’t we?

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

          Pretty sure there still are boxcars.

          Or have trains stopped hauling freight and I missed it?

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
        • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 2:49 pm |

          I live pretty close to a major nation rail line, I know boxcars.

          Just a bit dated phrasing, that’s all

        • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

          just thought boxcar was funny word.

  • pushbutton | May 22, 2011 at 9:26 am |

    Suggestion for the next “numberless era” throwback game:

    Use thin, little 5- or 6-inch numbers, centered between the shoulder blades, please. It’s a good compromise of authenticity/practicality.

    If anyone bitches, point out that everyone wears 42 for a series each year, so how important are numbers.

    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 9:40 am |

      That’s a great idea.

      Actually might not even have to be that big. 4-inch worked for football TV numbers for years, and I imagine the sleeve numbers on the Phillies are only 3-inch.

      To take it even farther, how’s this? Also make them the same color as the jersey with an narrow, appropriate color border.

      Last night, the Red Sox numbers would have been white with a red outline. Cubs would have been gray edged in navy.

      Visibly invisible. Or something.

    • RS Rogers | May 22, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

      Worst of all possible worlds. As evidenced by the 42 games, #OB serves no in-game purpose for baseball. At no point is it ever necessary for the players or the officials on the field to differentiate players from one another by number; this is one of the elegant aspects of the rules of baseball.* The numbers exist only to help spectators identify individual players. So either have numbers that are clear and visible – and this is something where plenty of regular MLB unis fail – or dispense with the numbers entirely. Don’t make them present but hard to see; that accomplishes nothing but with maximum pointlessness.

      *Actually, there are at least two base-running situations where #OB could be helpful to the umps, but both are exceedingly rare. And any confusion caused by the absence of numbers would be its own form of accurate, educational historical reenactment.

      • pushbutton | May 22, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

        I’ll bite. Which regular unis have numbers that are not clearly visible, and why, given what you’ve said, is that important?

        • BurghFan | May 22, 2011 at 6:07 pm |

          The Angels’ red numbers on red jerseys, the Braves’ blue on blue, … Scott’s point is that numbers are there for spectators’ convenience in identifying players. Making them unreadable for the fan in the upper deck defeats their purpose entirely.

  • Rob H. | May 22, 2011 at 10:00 am |

    [quote]If anyone bitches, point out that everyone wears 42 for a series each year, so how important are numbers.[/quote]

    You’re right, since “everyone 42” day proves we don’t “need” the numbers, then for a throwback to numberless-era, why not just forego the numbers entirely?

    • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 1:56 pm |

      MLB rules.

      • RS Rogers | May 22, 2011 at 10:10 pm |

        “Because the rules say so” is not a valid argument against changing the rules.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 23, 2011 at 2:30 am |

          but it is the reason they can’t forgo the numbers.

  • PhilKnight | May 22, 2011 at 10:02 am |

    All the rage in Chicago last night was about the UBS great new name. Go UBS Go!!! There is no UBS curse, UBS are 1-0 and look unbeatable…
    Top Twitter trend in the Windy City!

    • Mark in Shiga | May 22, 2011 at 11:25 am |

      I don’t think the Cubs have ever lost a game while wearing throwback uniforms. They beat the Red Sox today; they beat the Dodgers earlier this year; they made a comeback to win in 2008 while wearing 1948 home uniforms, they beat the Phillies back in 1992, also wearing 1948 uniforms, and (saving the best for last) they beat the White Sox in their first interleague series with them while wearing these truly amazing 1911 road outfits.

      And I don’t think either of those 1990s throwback games had number-positioning problems. No idea who made the jerseys, but they did a pretty good job.

  • Shep | May 22, 2011 at 10:04 am |

    My two biggest disappointments about the Cubs-Sawks throwbies, not including the Cubs sock situation, which has been discussed nicely…

    First, the colors of the caps didn’t seem to match the jerseys and pants. I realize, if I’m giving the benefit of the doubt, that some of this COULD have had to do with the difference between the wool caps, poly tops and bottoms, and the way the light was absorbed, reflected, and refracted by them. But what it looked like was that New Era and Majestic didn’t match samples before production.

    Second, I REALLY wish that the caps had a “deconstructed” or low crown. New Era makes low crown versions of the 59Fifty, and they’ve been making MLB caps since the 1930’s (or so their website says.) I know they wouldn’t be exact, but still…

    On a different note, when it comes to the added signage on The Monster, an interesting side situation occurred during Friday’s game. Current Cubs president, Crane Kenney, (the father of the Wrigley Field Toyota sign,) came to the Cubs from the Red Socks, where he oversaw the “improvements” to Fenway. As he sat in the Green Monster seats, Salty’s homer bounced off one of the signs and landed at his feet. The Chicago broadcast referred to the fact that the additional signs atop the wall are known as Crane’s signs. I’ve never heard that, but it’s an interesting coincidence if true.

    • RS | May 22, 2011 at 12:49 pm |

      For what it’s worth, I went by the Braves team store yesterday. As expected, they were selling Black Crackers gear like they wore last weekend. The hats for sale were deconstructed.

  • Poker Fiend | May 22, 2011 at 10:08 am |

    wow, this is simply amazing. great work you guys, keep ’em coming!

  • tms | May 22, 2011 at 10:10 am |

    Jeez, real harsh on the throwbacks. Faulting them for wearing modern, branded shoes? What the heck were you expecting? This was just like any other throwback game, just a bit more interesting because of the extreme time difference between now and the time these unis were worn. Aside from the socks, I thought it was well done.

    • mmwatkin | May 22, 2011 at 11:26 am |

      This is uni watch. The teams could nail the uniforms perfectly and they would bitch about advertising, modern equipment, players drinking gatorade, and modern airplanes flying overhead (what is that demon bird in the sky?!)

      • traxel | May 22, 2011 at 11:59 am |

        You betcha. Cause that’s what we do here!

      • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

        Someone remembers late night with Conan

        http://www.dailymoti...

    • RS Rogers | May 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

      Besides, has anyone ever tried to find solid-color, logo-free cleats? I have. They’re bloody hard to find, quite expensive when you do find them, delivery can take forever, and they take ages to break in and become even a little bit comfortable to wear.

      It’s not like there’s some magic factory making comfortable, modern athletic shoes with no logos or decorations. You’re basically dealing with an offshoot of the Civil War reenactors’ supply industry here.

      • StLMarty | May 22, 2011 at 1:56 pm |

        “You’re basically dealing with an offshoot of the Civil War reenactors’ supply industry here.”
        Thank you for my slouch hat.

      • Jeff P | May 22, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

        What about golf shoes? Get ’em in all black, and screw in cleats for football instead of those soft things.

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 3:21 pm |

          They ain’t shooting a remake of EIGHT MEN OUT.

  • dgm | May 22, 2011 at 10:11 am |

    other problems/inaccuracies from last night:

    1) disappointed to see they used several modern-day balls instead of the period-correct one dead ball for the whole game.

    2) also a shame to see no players choking up on their bat, as most players did back in 1918. another historical inaccuracy.

    3) can’t believe they played the game under floodlights – don’t they know that floodlights didn’t exist in 1918?

    not to mention that back in 1918 only white players were allowed to play. historical accuracy FAIL.

    so they had Majestic logos on their clothes and the numbers were too low. why is this so insulting to people?

    times change, accept it.

    • tms | May 22, 2011 at 10:18 am |

      Hey man, phil gets real offended when the numbers are 2 inches too low. Kinda personally insults him ya know?

    • The Jeff | May 22, 2011 at 10:22 am |

      You know, obviously there’s going to be some aspects from 1918 that can’t or shouldn’t be duplicated. But Majestic logos aren’t one of them. There’s no real reason that they couldn’t produce the on-field uniforms with no maker’s marks on them. None.

      Besides, nitpicking things is what we fucking do here.

      • dgm | May 22, 2011 at 10:50 am |

        jeff, nitpicking is one thing. BFBS (that would be bitching for bitching’s sake, btw) is another.

        and the reason they can’t (or rather won’t) produce uniforms without a manufacturer’s logo is because they fucking paid for the right to put that logo there. it’s not majestic’s fault, it’s MLB’s.

        don’t get me wrong – i’m not a majestic employee sent here to defend the company or some shit like that, i just think you (second person plural you) are barking up the wrong tree on this one.

        although, to be fair, this is one of those things i just have real trouble getting riled up over. except adidas’ stripes on soccer/rugby jerseys. those annoy the fuck out of me.

        • StLMarty | May 22, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

          Are you the rubber or the glue? The pot or the kettle?

        • dgm | May 22, 2011 at 3:55 pm |

          neither. there is a huge difference between a logo the size of a quarter and three garish stripes in a contrasting color on every sleeve and pair of shorts.

        • LI Phil | May 22, 2011 at 4:19 pm |

          if i had said the game and unis were perfect, i would have gotten ripped

          if i hadn’t covered it i’d have gotten ripped

          basically a no-win situation

          the name of this board is “Uni Watch,” and i watched and i saw what i saw … maybe the modern ads and the cleats with swooshes, stripes and UA (does anyone on either team wear UA cleats?) couldn’t be avoided; but i’m pretty certain the shoe makers DO make PE’s for a lot of players — how nice would it have been if they couldn’t make some without contrasting colorways and whatnot for this game? probably asking too much…

          was it fun to see the different unis? of course…do i approve overall? absolutely…but there were a few basic things they could have done better with minimal effort, and i feel they didn’t…just finished watching the yankees beat the mets, and i noticed the yankees unis have their numbers (with NNOB) in the proper position — so it can be done…and yes, the yankees PAY majestic NOT to have their logo on their unis, but they look damn good without them…for one game, couldn’t majestic have done the same for the throwbacks?

          and could the players have worn their socks properly? really, is that too much to ask?

        • Simply Moono | May 22, 2011 at 5:40 pm |

          “…but i’m pretty certain the shoe makers DO make PE’s for a lot of players — how nice would it have been if they couldn’t make some without contrasting colorways and whatnot for this game? probably asking too much…”

          (http://www.eastbay.c...)

      • -DW | May 22, 2011 at 5:20 pm |

        Yes, that is what is done here, but sometimes the BFBS (bitchin’ for bitchin’ sake) is waaaay over the top.

        Sometimes, I wonder if you guys like anything at all except the Mets/Packers/Vikings/Twins/Brewers.

    • Alex | May 22, 2011 at 10:22 am |

      When I see the majestic logo on the back of players pants, I just turn off the TV. I can’t bear to watch such atrocities.

    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 10:56 am |

      Yeah, sometimes you can’t get a little practical reality inserted here with a whole tube of Kentucky Jelly.

      Although the socks WERE messed up for both teams, and the Cubs’ royal sleeves should have been navy. Those, to me, were the only things that really bugged me, because they could so easily have been done better.

      Don’t even mind the current batting helmets. Sure, a repaint would have been fun, but it’s one of those things that some teams just don’t see as worth the time, effort and expense. I can forgive them. What the hell, who wore a batting helmet in 1918, anyway.

      The rest of the regular gear (cleats, batting gloves, et al) is gonna get used. After all, they did still have to play a game that counted. I wasn’t WKRP vs. KCAL.

      The low numbers thing isn’t only about throwbacks. It’s about laziness on behalf of the manufacturers, not adjusting to a different format (non NOB) and a lack of knowledge of knowing the difference.

      Putting all those things aside, was still a fun experience to see an old look…even if they did mess up some of the details.

      Remember when Niles and Frasier came home and said their dinner was excellent except for one tiny flaw…and Daphne responded, “Oh, then it was perfect for you.”

      • CS | May 22, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

        “Remember when Niles and Frasier came home and said their dinner was excellent except for one tiny flaw…and Daphne responded, ‘Oh, then it was perfect for you.’”

        No. I do not remember this.

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

          Well, one would hope you get the point anyway.

    • Shep | May 22, 2011 at 11:43 am |

      dgm,

      Respectfully, isn’t the point of this site to be a forum for discussion and study of the aesthetics of sport, and the OBSESSIVE study at that? And isn’t part of study a discussion of comparative strength and weaknesses? The Red Sox decided that last night’s game would be a throwback game, and I think the discussion (for the most part) is coming from a place of wanting the very best for these storied franchises.

      • Gusto44 | May 22, 2011 at 12:29 pm |

        Personally, I would like to see another pre WW2 throwback game in which at least one team wore pillbox hats. The 1919 Cardinals come to mind for the NL.

  • Paul Lee | May 22, 2011 at 11:42 am |

    I like the Wizards tweak but the hands look weird.

    • traxel | May 22, 2011 at 12:01 pm |

      I do too, but yeah, the hands could use a little tweak. That would be a great template if his shorts weren’t riding up on one side.

    • paul barrett | May 22, 2011 at 12:45 pm |

      thanks! I was pretty happy with it for the most part.

      I just used a Google image search for the original bullets logo, then stretched out the hands in psd to center the ball under the collar. In hindsight i would have gone with one hand and an off center ball. Oh well.

    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 12:53 pm |

      Nice looking uni. In some ways far better than what the Bullets chose to do.

      • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

        See? The new unis look so much like the Bullets they created a brain fart.

        Wizards. Wizards. Wizards.

        • RS Rogers | May 22, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

          One suspects that is not an accident. The new unis really are a have-cake-and-eat-it-too deal for the Wizards. They don’t have to change the name to Bullets; everyone who cares enough to want the name change will associate the new unis with the Bullets, and probably call the team the Bullets by accident pretty frequently, both mentally and literally, and everyone who doesn’t care about the Bullets name will just see the Wizards as one of the best-dressed teams in the NBA. It’s really a very good bit of strategic marketing & design.

  • paul barrett | May 22, 2011 at 12:41 pm |

    Syracuse lacrosse wearing the Nike neon plague on ESPNU right now.

    Ick.

    • ChrisN | May 22, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

      I was about to ask why the ‘Cuse is wearing Oregon’s socks…

      • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

        Well, that looks downright silly.

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 1:20 pm |

          Are we heading for NFNS?

          Oh, swell.

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

          Ohdarn. They lost.

        • Paul Barrett | May 22, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

          Here’s hoping future Nike clients will realize that look is now 0-2 in postseason play.

    • Jim Vilk | May 23, 2011 at 12:07 am |

      I saw part of that game and my first thought was, “Oh, what’s the cause du jour?” Didn’t think they were doing NFNS.

      I could see that color with Oregon, but it was way out of place on Syracuse.

      Interesting Final Four. Denver? Who woulda thunk it?

      Oh, and I called it here first – in a generation, lacrosse will be bigger than football.

  • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm |

    QUESTION:

    Is the Phillies pitcher in the lead photo identified somewhere and I missed it?

    Can’t put a face with the name and it’s driving me nuts.

    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 1:03 pm |

      Vice versa. A name with the face.

    • swilson160 | May 22, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

      Jamie Moyer?

      • Gary | May 22, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

        Not Moyer. This player is from the era mid-Fifties to late Sixties.

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 1:52 pm |

          Moyer was still with the Cubs then. ;)

      • traxel | May 22, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

        Ha! Good one.

    • Gary | May 22, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

      I’ve tried researching Phillies rosters looking for pitchers with numbers ending in “3.” But no luck. I also tried researching the photo source, but another dead end.

      Going to send this to the Phils broadcast team for help.

  • LarryB | May 22, 2011 at 12:57 pm |

    Gary, Thanks for the colorization help. I enjoy your work.

    • Gary | May 22, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

      Welcome and thanks.

  • LarryB | May 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

    oooh the Benchies today LOL

    • Komet17 | May 22, 2011 at 4:16 pm |

      I’m trying to recall: Is today’s Benchies the first-ever UW reference to a sex toy?

  • -DW | May 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

    I love the Jerry Reuss 1965 throwback.

    My only complaint: The numbers on the back and the lettering is to large.

    Other than that, looks good.

    I wonder if Jerry will see it.

    • Jerry Reuss | May 22, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

      Imagine my surprise this morning seeing Sean O’Malley’s Uni Tweak of a 1965 Reds uni, the best uni the Reds ever wore, with my name and number on it! I would have been proud to wear that uniform, especially in 1965 when I was a sophomore in high school! Many thanks for thinking of me, Sean!

      • Sean | May 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm |

        Thanks for the kind words. It is always good to be appreciated for your work.

        I am glad you liked it.

    • Craig D | May 23, 2011 at 12:35 pm |

      My second Uni Watch membership that I just ordered is in this style. I think it is cool as heck. I hope there will be a throwback to these sometime soon.

  • Kirby Priika | May 22, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

    Seriously? Bitching about there being park advertising in a throw-back game? You know most parks were plastered with colorful advertising back in the day, right?

    For example, Fenway Park in 1914:

    http://summertownsto...

    So evilly corporate.

    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

      Fenway, back in the day…
      http://www.zimbio.co...

    • black | May 22, 2011 at 1:32 pm |

      Let’s go all in next time and allow fans to stand in roped-off sections of the outfield like that.

    • Valjean | May 22, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

      Carried into later years too (even “worse” by the 1940’s). I think the monster was only ad-free for a brief spell in the ’70s and ’80s.

      Bawstawn has just always been evilly corporate, eh? Or were the ads just better back then?

      • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

        Good job. That’s the particular era I was looking for, but even older turned out to be helpful, too.

        So I guess the point’s made in spades, huh.

      • Graham Jaunts | May 22, 2011 at 1:47 pm |

        There were no ads on the Monster through the 90’s and into the 2000’s. I believe the ads came back when the Monster seats were put in in 2003, or maybe just before. Regardless, I’m pretty sure it was the current ownership that slapped them on.

      • Jerry Reuss | May 22, 2011 at 2:00 pm |

        Click the link for an ad-free look at the Green Monster @ Fenway. http://www.flickr.co...

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm |

          Can see it on MLB Network. They picked the ’75 Fisk Homer Game as the greatest game of the past 50 years.

          Is on at 5 p.m. EDT today.

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

          Correction. 7 pm EDT.

        • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

          Do you think they’ll have the unis right?

      • pushbutton | May 22, 2011 at 2:05 pm |

        There were no ads in ’67. In fact I think the only ad in the whole park was the Jimmy Fund sign in right field.

  • Marc M. | May 22, 2011 at 1:39 pm |

    Oswalt wearing pajama bottoms for the Phils today.

  • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
  • Graham Jaunts | May 22, 2011 at 1:45 pm |

    I don’t really have a huge problem with nitpicking the uniforms from last night’s Cubs-Sox game. It’s what UniWatch does best. Some of those complaints are valid – I don’t know why Majestic needs to slap their logo on those unis. Some of those complaints are kinda silly, IMO – the brandless cleats (not sure what you were expecting, and I REALLY hope my team doesn’t switch equipment for a game that counts).

    But I do have one thing to say: can’t we at least appreciate the fact that these teams apparently did something unique and fun and uni-interesting for our benefit? This really doesn’t seem like a marketing ploy (those hats aren’t going to sell) or a way to get people to the park (unis announced a few days ago, game sold out for months). There’s something nice about two teams doing something fun for us. Good for them. That Majestic’s logo was on the sleeve of the uniform or the Sox’s socks weren’t quite right really pales in importance, to me.

    (not a Sox/Cubs/Majestic/Fox employee!)

    • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 1:52 pm |

      Clearly you work for New Era or MLB.

      (That was a joke, for all you fools readying your keyboards)

      • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

        Clearly, we need to differentiate between uniforms and equipment. Shoes, helmets, batting gloves, elbow sleeves, even wristbands, are equipment that is going to be used, and they’re going to look odd with the vintage unis (positive, but not essential, expections being such as the A’s deciding to go with black cleats for their Oakland Oaks unis a while back, or the occasional repaint of batting helmets).

        Spotting anachronisms in that area is…du-uh.

        I don’t think catchers would eschew their big ass helmets or knee-savers for the sake of a throwback game.

        The U.S. Ryder Cup team wore nicely vintage style outfits last time out. Should we have expected to wear metal cleats and play with mashies and niblicks and hit golf balls with the carry of a walnut?

  • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

    Hey noone gets throwbacks right ALWAYS

    http://www.dailymoti...

    (like the granola bar guy)

    • LI Phil | May 22, 2011 at 4:05 pm |

      i actually know two of the people in that skit

      • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 4:45 pm |

        I can’t decide if I think that’s awful or awesome…

        • LI Phil | May 22, 2011 at 4:54 pm |

          unfortunately, it was two of the dudes playing base ball

          i wish i knew the soon-to-be-civil-war-widow

        • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 4:57 pm |

          I feel like that woman will either be murdered or murder lots of people.

  • traxel | May 22, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

    I didn’t see the Ubs Sawks game (or any hilites) so I just flipped through a photo gallery a minute ago. I really REALLY liked both teams EXCEPT for the hats. They way they were worn, high cuffed, bloused, the socks, less is more, ALL very cool. The hats on both teams sucked though. Purely from an aesthetic point of view. Change those things up to a Red Bosox hat with a white outline of a red sock or a white B, and a blue Chicubs hat with a white bear, and I would’ve been in hog heaven.

    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

      Tweaking 1918 unis, are we? ;)

      • traxel | May 22, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

        That’s what we do here of course!

  • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

    Who ever mocked up those [UBS and Sawks unis in the Strasburg template sure did a great job.[/unnecessary-pat-on-back]

    • StLMarty | May 22, 2011 at 3:40 pm |

      Dskenrai,opuzsmlmy?

      • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 4:57 pm |

        god bless you

  • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 3:34 pm |

    Here’s a thought…

    When teams do these throwback games…

    Is it about trying to recreate the exact uniforms?

    Or…

    Is it to show how the unis would look if the style of those times had carried forward to today?

    Huge difference, especially when we critique the results.

    Discuss.

    • traxel | May 22, 2011 at 11:43 pm |

      I agree with all the followups to that post Ricko!

  • Samuel | May 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm |

    The A’s have brought up Josh Outman from the minors for a start this week. The stirrups are back!!!

    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

      Oh, good. Hiked up stirrups and baggy pants.
      Pure 1970’s Little League.

      That’s not really a debatable point, btw.
      MLBers wore tailored, tapered pants in that era.
      Little Leaguers did not.
      But they COULD stretch out their stirrups in an attempt to approximate the look.

  • DanD | May 22, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

    Great job Sean on the ’65 Reds throwbacks. Those are my all-time favorites. I love white caps, especially with pnstripes. If you have to have NOB, below the number is fine. I would eliminate NOB, lower and enlarge the number a bit and trim the “C” on the cap in black. Nevertheless, you did a beautiful job.

    • -DW | May 22, 2011 at 8:28 pm |

      But then it would not be true to the 1965 uniform.

  • G-Pong | May 22, 2011 at 4:30 pm |

    I think the “ubs” thing would have been avoided if they would have copied the old cubs logo properly, which I haven’t seen mentioned yet. The white stripe was WAY to thick compared to the 3 pictures of the 1918 cubs in yesterday’s posting. It looked like in those pictures the c had a skinny white line in the middle and it was mostly blue, not the huge thick white line. I know it is nitpicking but hey, I think that goes just fine around here! To see what I mean compare yesterdays in game logo to this: http://farm4.static....

  • Jem Truman | May 22, 2011 at 4:38 pm |

    What’s up with Colby Rasmus’ socks/pants in today’s game? (St Louis at Kansas City) Can’t find a good photo of it yet but looks like he’s trying to high cuff and blouse pajama bottoms. Nice to see socks (definitely socks not stirrups), but the way he’s wearing it—- would be even nicer to see classic Cardinal stirrups worn correctly.

  • Sean | May 22, 2011 at 4:46 pm |

    I am glad you liked it.

    Thanks for the kind words. It is always good to be appreciated for your work.

    • Sean | May 22, 2011 at 4:46 pm |

      Oops, that was for Jerry Reuss.

  • Matt F | May 22, 2011 at 4:46 pm |

    Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like a lot of teams put A LOT less effort into throwback games than what Fenway Park, the Sox, and the Cubs did last night, but somehow those teams get a lot less criticism than what was written for last night’s game.

    After seeing the fact that even Big Papi went high-cuffed, I was expecting a relatively positive review. No such luck.

    I’m not saying that we shouldn’t nit-pick these types of games (since that is what this site is for), but for the love of god, give credit where credit is due.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 4:55 pm |

      For the last time, if your uniform has ONE distinguishing feature that separates it from a stock uniform that fell off the back of a majestic truck then at least get it right.

      The Sox socks were an atrocious error and they should be chastised for it.

      The Cubs were just fucking up their own unis (for the most part).

      And Papi gets 0 credit for going high cuffed on a night when there was only one singular design element on the cap, jersey and pants – that being the plain block number on the back. Had he, or anyone, not gone high cuffed, they would have looked patently ridiculous.

      • Simply Moono | May 22, 2011 at 6:06 pm |

        But Tim, don’t you see why they fucked up something so simple? It’s because they hate America.

        (http://www.youtube.c...)

      • Matt F | May 22, 2011 at 8:17 pm |

        And yet people would have bitched had they not gone high cuffed. That’s what half the bitching on this site goes towards.

        Plus, it wasn’t a throwback game just for shits and giggles It’s not like the Sox decided that they would just wear the most boring uni in their history for fun. They were throwing back to a specific season for a specific reason. So it makes sense that the “stock Sox” unis were that way.

        Yes the socks that both teams wore were a “mess” (from a historical stance) but didn’t ruin the uniforms.

        I just have an issue with the game being given almost no credit for any of the things it got right (which was plenty), especially when it came to the supposed evil ads on the Green Monster, which, as has been pointed out, is minimal compared to the amount of ads it actually had on it in 1918.

        The game looked fine.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 9:26 pm |

          What you’re saying is, “yeah they looked bad, but if they put it together late, it’s okay that it looks like crap.”

          What I’m saying is, “if you’re going to do a throwback, don’t half ass it. If you’re going to do something 50%, don’t do it at all.”

          I agree, the Green Monster argument is silly, those sponsors would be PISSED (and their contracts would probably violated) if their ads were covered for the came, but the Sox do not get credit for wearing plain, nameless, logo-less, stripe-less, design-less, stock white uniforms. That’s not hard. So don’t fuck up the ONE AND ONLY design element.

          THAT shouldn’t’ve been hard. It would be like a catholic priest wearing all black but not his white collar – it’s the one defining element. Yet, they fucked it up.

          The Cubs, they looked okay with the exception of players wearing the socks wrong, which is a player problem more than a ‘throwback organizer’ problem.

        • Matt F | May 22, 2011 at 9:58 pm |

          Fair enough. I was just happy to see the Sox do something throwback for once. I think the last time they did a throwback was several seasons ago, and it was just a throwback to the old away jersey that said “BOSTON” in block font.

          Last night’s game could have been a lot better, but it also could have been a lot worse.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 10:05 pm |

          Agreed. I gave it a C earlier and I stand by that. It’s not a D or an F, but it’s also not an A or a B.

          It could’ve easily been a B+, sad it wasn’t.

          AND this has been a prime example of an ‘argument’ between people of two different opinions who were civil and respect – but disagree with – the other person’s opinions.

          It can be done! Who knew…

        • Matt F | May 22, 2011 at 10:12 pm |

          Indeed!

  • Graham Jaunts | May 22, 2011 at 5:05 pm |

    This site sure is joyless sometimes.

    • pushbutton | May 22, 2011 at 5:59 pm |

      Share your joy.

      • -DW | May 22, 2011 at 8:34 pm |

        There is a lot of negativity on this site.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 9:27 pm |

          No there isn’t.

          (get it? it’s a negative statement.)

  • Brandon | May 22, 2011 at 6:59 pm |

    I love the negativity of this site. Phil could of focused on how the uniforms that the Red Sox and Cubs wore yesterday were similar to the 1918 World Series. Phil could of written a piece that focused on the actual players of the day and showing side by side photos of then and now. Instead he dives into everything that was wrong with the entire production. He fails to mention that small harmless Majestic logos MUST BE THERE DUE TO CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS WITH MLB. Phil just takes the easy way out and bitches and moans about the things that can’t be avoided instead of embracing a matchup that hadn’t taken place in over 90 years.

    This is not an isolated incident, and I find it really sad. This use to be a blog that celebrated uniforms, but I feel that in the past year or two there has been so much focus in what is wrong with them. While Paul is somewhat to blame for this, it has been Phil that has driven me away from this website, and why I went from a daily reader, to a weekly reader, to a rare occasion reader. What I use to like about this site is gone, and is now ruled by those who do not celebrate uniforms. Instead they use this as an outlet to tell you why nobody can live up to their standards anymore.

    I recognize that everyone is welcomed to their own opinion, and I am suggesting that this site get back to its roots of focusing on the good instead of the bad.

    I would also like to state that this is not an outburst on “fandom.” I am not a fan of the Red Sox or the Cubs.

    • LI Phil | May 22, 2011 at 8:28 pm |

      did you read the site yesterday? obviously not, because if you had, you would have seen that i did do some historical research into the uniforms worn by both teams — and if you’ve read this board for as long as you say you have, then you’d know there are many, many, many, many times i delve into the historical aspects of the unis — including yesterday’s post

      THESE ARE NOT ISOLATED INCIDENTS

      i have taken shit for the past two days, and quite frankly, i’m getting a bit sick of it

      i have an incredible amount of shit, some of it not good, going on in my life right now, and i could (and paul has even encouraged me to) put up a picture and a caption and be done with it

      but if i can’t come up with a main article on my own because i simply don’t have the ten extra hours a week per article it takes to research, then i make sure i can find a reader with incredible talent (for the most part) to showcase — all of which takes time and effort as well — but i do it because i feel an obligation to the reader

      i don’t mind if you criticize my opinions or my tastes or even my penchant for featuring tweakers … those are all quite legitimate beefs

      but if you think all i do every weekend is “bitch and moan” about teams screwing up throwback unis, then you obviously haven’t been reading, or if you have, you haven’t been comprehending

      and if you think im “taking the easy way out” or some such nonsense, then you’re sadly mistaken

      i do apologize to you that i couldn’t spend about five hours of research on these throwbacks WHEN THEY WEREN’T EVEN ANNOUNCED UNTIL THE END OF THE WEEK

      i saw what i saw, and i commented on it

      i’m sorry if you’ve become a “daily to weekly to rare occasion reader”

      don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out

    • Paul Lukas | May 22, 2011 at 8:50 pm |

      There is no contractual agreement that requires Majestic’s logo to appear on any uniform (just ask the Yankees). Rather, Majestic is ALLOWED to put their logos on the uniforms. Big difference.

      Phil’s job — and I should know, because he works for me — is not to provide a positive (or negative) outlook on things. It’s to call it like he sees it. And if he sees it negatively, then that’s what he should say. The notion that the site should “get back to its roots” by “focusing on the positive” is neither accurate not appropriate. The only “roots” here are that we call it like we see it.

      • Simply Moono | May 22, 2011 at 9:24 pm |

        Right on, Paul. Prime example: I’m a Lakers fan, but that apathetic response against the Mavericks in game four on Mother’s Day pissed me right the hell off. The Lakers need a serious reality check in order to start playing Laker basketball again. (Andrew Bynum just needs a slap upside the head with an MMA fighter’s fist after this shit: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsMprVOQToM])

        My response to the game was negative because the Lakers PLAYED negatively. It’s not that they lost (everyone loses), but HOW they lost *coughwithnoclasscough*. I’m not an ass-kissing fan. I have an opinion, and what good is an opinion if you don’t share it with your team so that they can better themselves?

        Same thing with the unis from last night’s CHI Cubs/BOS game. It’s not the unis themselves, but the apathetic response to the socks, the logo on the back of the caps, the blue cleats *coughcubscough*, and the overall lack of attention to detail to the easiest of fixes is what’s creating this shitstorm. Phil is simply expressing his opinion on the game’s aesthetics. After all, this IS America, isn’t it? But the Sawks didn’t care to get the proper white tubes with the big-ass red stripe, and the cubs players didn’t bother to look at the throwback style guide on how to wear their tubes properly, so they OBVIOUSLY must hate America. (http://www.youtube.c...)

      • New York Jets PR Dept. | May 22, 2011 at 9:53 pm |

        Uni Watch should only do POSITIVE articles, just as we only let our players do POSITIVE interviews.

        • Tour de France PR Dept. | May 22, 2011 at 9:59 pm |

          Uni Watch should only do POSITIVE articles, just as we only allow our competitors to race after POSITIVE drug tests.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 22, 2011 at 9:09 pm |

      haters gone hate…

      • Simply Moono | May 22, 2011 at 9:26 pm |

        Lovers gonna love…

    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 9:59 pm |

      I mentioned “Reality” earlier today.

      Here’s another reality. It figures that the people who write this blog would be among the most intrigued, captivated by, and concerned with, unis among us.

      So if something bothers Paul or Phil more than it does me I should be surprised? Or get pissed? Or ream ’em a new one?

      Oh, I’ll point out an opposing view, sure. But I don’t need to slam dunk them in the process. No reason for it.

      Now as far as teams mucking up throwback games.
      Well, if they got them perfect we couldn’t indulge in the detail-hunting that so often is what UW is all about. Also, I’d rather teams continute to do them and mess ’em up a little than stop doing them altogether.

      Y’know, the ROAD TO PERDITION (an understimated Tom Hanks film, btw) is set in 1931. In two scenes his son is reading a Lone Ranger Big Little Book. Ooops, Lone Ranger didn’t first appear until a radio broadcast in January, 1933. Does it ruin the movie? Not at all. But it did make it a little more fun for me because I caught the anachronism/inaccuracy.

  • -DW | May 22, 2011 at 8:48 pm |

    At first, I thought it was a Padres game.

    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

  • Rob S | May 22, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
    • Ricko | May 22, 2011 at 10:28 pm |

      Because it happened in one of my regular Sunday softball games a couple years ago. Was just too funny not to be retold somewhere along the line.

      Would never fly in a daily newspaper, of course, but on the Internet (or in just about any current sitcom), no problem.

    • Jim Vilk | May 22, 2011 at 10:50 pm |

      Love those jerseys. Put the number on both sleeves and I’d wear that. Aw, heck, I’d wear it just as it is.

      • Simply Moono | May 22, 2011 at 10:53 pm |

        Of course you would. LOLZ X)

        • Jim Vilk | May 22, 2011 at 11:02 pm |

          Deja vu. :)

        • Simply Moono | May 23, 2011 at 1:13 am |

          I know, right?

  • Jim Vilk | May 22, 2011 at 11:01 pm |

    Whew, long day.

    If you really want to see old-timey-looking baseball, then you should have been in Akron today instead of watching Boston last night. I was going to go see these guys play today, but I had to go to a funeral home instead.

    There’s a daylong exhibition in July. If I’m free I want to go and take pictures. I’ll be sure to post some if I do.

    As for the Cubs/Sawx game, it looked like one of my DIY projects – well-intentioned but done on the cheap. I have an excuse because I’m a tightwad on a budget, but Majestic could have done a slightly better job. As Ricko said, though, “I’d rather teams continue to do them and mess ‘em up a little than stop doing them altogether.”

  • Coleman | May 23, 2011 at 12:37 am |

    I know everyone is probably done reading the comments for tonight but I’m watching the Syracuse/Maryland lacrosse game and noticed something not mentioned from what I’ve seen here. The Syracuse jerseys have a ghosted “S” below their numbers on the back. It appears to be sewn in and now just a watermark too. Sorry, but no screen cap…

    I’m sure everyone was busy watching those socks though. *sigh*

    • Coleman | May 23, 2011 at 1:01 am |

      Looked for an image and found this one, http://blog.syracuse... just imagine the orange “S” is white. Not quite as impressive now, but it’s something not immediately recognizable if you weren’t already aware.

      Here’s one with the white “S” I just found… http://images.lax.co...

    • Jim Vilk | May 23, 2011 at 1:12 am |

      I can sorta see it in this picture,
      http://media.syracus...
      but if you wouldn’t have said something, I probably wouldn’t have noticed it. Good catch!

      • Simply Moono | May 23, 2011 at 1:18 am |

        I’ve noticed it, but never bothered to mention it. Seems pointless to put it there, seeing that it virtually invisible. Hey Jim, how did you cross out the ‘tightwad’ in your previous comment up above?

        • Jim Vilk | May 23, 2011 at 1:27 am |

          Phil taught me some html coding:
          http://www.ncsu.edu/...
          Scroll down until you see “Strike-through.”

        • Simply Moono | May 23, 2011 at 4:03 am |

          Cool. Thanks =) Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some naked whores to attend to to rest up for school. Goodnight.

      • Coleman | May 23, 2011 at 8:22 am |

        Thanks Jim.
        I couldn’t find any pics from yesterday’s game when I posted. How did you find some only 11 minutes later?

        • Jim Vilk | May 23, 2011 at 10:20 am |

          Ancient Polish secret.

          I think I just googled “Syracuse lacrosse” and clicked on the news section. Just checked there and the pictures are a little different now, but I think that’s because they’ve added more since last night.

  • Michael Emody | May 23, 2011 at 1:15 am |

    At the end of a long day of disagreeing posts, I just want to say that the back of the uniform is the back HALF of the uni, perhaps more so when the front is blank. It would have been nicer if both teams had their current fonts, centered properly and done in one color.

    And “boxcar” is funny.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 23, 2011 at 2:27 am |

      THANK YOU!

  • Mael | May 24, 2011 at 2:27 am |

    Your whining about corporations is tiresome and silly.