Card Trick

I still can’t believe players don’t want to show off those stirrups in the picture.

I gotta say, the tighter NHL uniforms don’t look as bad as I had feared. Granted, the ones link in the blog aren’t yet infected by Rbk, but they are untucked. The only thing that does bother me is the “Popeye” effect shown by Dumont (far right). Since the upper arm is basically unpadded, the elbow pad sticks out quite a bit, making for quite a strange look.

I also think that perhaps the most uncomfortable part of sweaters that tight is the arm; for a sweater to go on comfortably, the sleeves need to be able to rotate around the elbow pad. Nothing is more frustrating than pulling on a sweater and having your whole sleeve rotated 180 degrees, bunching up at the armpit, and having no slack in the sleeve to fix it. Freakin OSU intramurals…

[quote comment=”16697″]I have an exam in an hour, but i still made sure to check out Uni Watch first…i officially have a problem[/quote]

I think you have more than just 1 problem…you also have the exam…

Love that picture of Casey Stengel wearing the original Mets cap with the solid orange NY logo that used to remind me so much of the old New York Giants logo. Why did the Mets have to screw around with a classic and add all that black bullsh*t?

Strikes me as a little silly/dangerous that the new hockey socks are going to be made out of the same material as the jerseys. Some of the point of the current sweater-weave, thick socks, is protection. Its hard for a skate to penetrate all that fabric, and they provide a little bit of padding on the back of the leg, which is otherwise unprotected. I’m seriously hoping Reebok doesn’t decide to eliminate the horizontal hoop striping on the socks in favor of those monstrosity designs they unveiled for the Olympics with the vertical colored blocks.

In the Predators photo, anybody else thing that the jersey makes Dumont on the far right looks like he is wearing a girdle?

[quote comment=”16712″]In the Predators photo, anybody else thing that the jersey makes Dumont on the far right looks like he is wearing a girdle?[/quote]

I think part of the problem is he’s got his glove tucked in under his right arm. Since it’s black, it gives the sweater a weird effect. They guy on the far left looks more “normal” (sorry I can’t figure out who that is).

Paul, nice blog on the Cards today. That is pretty cool that they’ve had basically the same uni (with minor updates) for over 80 years. Here’s to another 80+ of more birds on the bat.

On the Cardinals “non-redbird” script…

When he was the Pirates broadcaster, Milo Hamilton told a story that former Cardinals GM Fran Lane dropped the bird-and-bat motif from the Cards’ uniforms for one year — but outraged Redbird fans demanded its return, and the classic logo was restored the following season.

“Trader” Lane was obviously a better wheeler/dealer than fashionista.

i like that jersey stan is holding… I’m a big fan of that interlocking StL… did the browns have it before the cardinals?

[quote comment=”16724″]Sorry if this comes across as stupid or blasphemous, but this is a thought that’s been kicking around in my head for a little while.

We here all seem to agree that Detroit’s home uniforms are one fo the best in baseball, but their road unis could use some improvement. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it make sense for the Tigers to have their road uniforms be a gray version of their home uniforms? Doesn’t that make sense to anyone else?

It’s not just the Tigers, either. I think quite a few teams could benefit from this, just like the Cardinals already do. The Yankees spring to mind immediately for one.

I guess I just don’t get why most teams still go with the city name for road uniforms and the nickname/logo for home uniforms, especially because one always looks better than the other. Why make things more difficult than they need to be?

If anyone is a whiz at Photoshop, I’d love to see what a gray version of the Tigers’ home uniform would look like.[/quote]

you mean, like this:

link

The Cardinals have had the interlocking StL since at least 1900. The Browns did not adopt an interlocking St. Louis logo until 1911. The Browns’ logo didn’t start to mirror the Cardinals until the 40’s. The Browns just had an interlocking SL until maybe 1946 or so.

Coincidentally enough, the Tigers ditched the Old English “D” home uniforms for the 1960 season. Fan outrage got the Tigers to bring back the classic look for 1961, which they’ve worn ever since.

link

Speaking of pre-season uniform changes, there’s s photo of Seattle Pilots manager Joe Schultz wearing a Pilots hat with a very different S. I can only imagine that it was taken well in advance of the season, at some “We’ve got a ‘big leauge’ team.” since he’s also holding a martini…I’m surprised it isn’t a Bud. It also looks like the Seattle text is higher and not arched as it would later be…

id love to see a cardinals home alternate red with the St.L on it, similar to the cincinnati alternate. and then a road alternate navy as well.

[quote comment=”16724″]Sorry if this comes across as stupid or blasphemous, but this is a thought that’s been kicking around in my head for a little while.

We here all seem to agree that Detroit’s home uniforms are one fo the best in baseball, but their road unis could use some improvement. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it make sense for the Tigers to have their road uniforms be a gray version of their home uniforms? Doesn’t that make sense to anyone else?

It’s not just the Tigers, either. I think quite a few teams could benefit from this, just like the Cardinals already do. The Yankees spring to mind immediately for one.

I guess I just don’t get why most teams still go with the city name for road uniforms and the nickname/logo for home uniforms, especially because one always looks better than the other. Why make things more difficult than they need to be?

If anyone is a whiz at Photoshop, I’d love to see what a gray version of the Tigers’ home uniform would look like.[/quote]

Yeah, not so much. Their road jerseys look good as they are. Leave ’em alone.

[quote comment=”16714″][quote comment=”16712″]In the Predators photo, anybody else thing that the jersey makes Dumont on the far right looks like he is wearing a girdle?[/quote]

I think part of the problem is he’s got his glove tucked in under his right arm. Since it’s black, it gives the sweater a weird effect. They guy on the far left looks more “normal” (sorry I can’t figure out who that is).
[/quote]

Far left is David Legwand.

I think the Preds practice jerseys look like they don’t fit right, but that could be due to being used to the old style. A waterproof front is a good idea, but I can’t help but wonder if its just going to result in the players having wet pants, as opposed to wet shirts. Especially since these jerseys are much shorter than the old ones.

[quote comment=”16718″]On the Cardinals “non-redbird” script…

When he was the Pirates broadcaster, Milo Hamilton told a story that former Cardinals GM Fran Lane dropped the bird-and-bat motif from the Cards’ uniforms for one year — but outraged Redbird fans demanded its return, and the classic logo was restored the following season.

“Trader” Lane was obviously a better wheeler/dealer than fashionista.[/quote]

For what it’s worth, Cardinals’ principal owner Bill DeWitt has been quoted as saying the team is considering “tweaking” the road uniforms next season… replacing the “Cardinals” script with “St. Louis”… but keeping the “Birds On The Bat” logo. The Cards used a link in 1930, which lasted through 1932. Since then, they’ve worn “Cardinals” and the “Birds On The Bat” except for “Frantic Frank’s” failed experiment in the 1950s.

[quote comment=”16709″] I’m seriously hoping Reebok doesn’t decide to eliminate the horizontal hoop striping on the socks in favor of those monstrosity designs they unveiled for the Olympics with the vertical colored blocks.[/quote]

Umm, that was link

[quote comment=”16754″]Is it players asking for baggier jerseys or does the Cardinals logo/script seem to be dropping? On Eckstein, the script is just above his belt.[/quote]

Go easy on him, he’s just a link

I know I am a day late with this but it’s been bothering me. The NHL would seriously be at the risk of alienating the real hocket fans who love Detroit, Montreal, NYR, and Chicago’s classic uni’s. I’d include the Leafs in there but I hate them. And Boston’s latests aren’t near as good as the Dit Clapper or Bobby Orr Jerseys.

i’ve been out of the loop for a few days so i’d like to catch up on some things.

the Emerson thing was rad.
i would LOVE to see the Patriots go back to the Old Pat Patriot logo, but i do like the color scheme with the blue. i HATED the red. the Enemy wore red back then, not us. geesh.
a blue jersey, with red and white accents, white hat, with red and blue stripes.
white pants with matching stripes.
away they could wear more red, maybe?

hockey stuff:
the colleg jerseys are so much fun to look at. i LOVE the new Ohio State jerseys. i also like the light blue alaska ones and the Miami OH ones. the new northeastern ones are kinda plain but its okay. i wish BC would fix their FONTS! i hate them.

oh. BC football is wearing Turn Back the Clock stuff against Buffalo, but i have no idea what that means, exactly. they take the strip off the helmet?

back to hockey:

i never liked the Rangers jerseys. i liked the statue of Liberty one better. sorry. i love the other orig. 6 jerseys. glad the new ones will stay untucked and w/ bottom stripes.

boston’s new 3rd jersey goes back to the Big Bad Bruins glory days jerseys. breaking them out this week for the 1st time this year. can’t wait.
i hated the pooh bear jerseys.

sorry for the scattershot post.

For what it’s worth I had read once in a baseball history book (I forget which one, sorry)that the reason the city names were on the road uniforms was so that the host city’s fans would know who their team was playing against.

Classic Uni Match-up Alert!!!!

Boston Bruins unveiling their vintage third jerseys tonight against the Montreal Canadiens. It’s unclear if the Habs will be wearing theirs, but it will still be visually appealing whether or not they do.

B’s third (in the middle): link

Habs third (in the middle):link

[quote comment=”16758″][quote comment=”16754″]Is it players asking for baggier jerseys or does the Cardinals logo/script seem to be dropping? On Eckstein, the script is just above his belt.[/quote]

Go easy on him, he’s just a link[/quote]

Beat me to it, but I was gonna say link

Oh and I wish they would wear these a little more!!!

Interesting- the MLB teams that don’t have their home locale’s name on their road jerseys (excl alternates of course): Angels (what would you even put?), Brewers, Cards, and Orioles. That’s it. Am I missing any?

Phillies

On this Topic, Caps that have letters and aren’t the city’s Initials bother me. Like the link There is no reason for that R to be there, also the link alternate, the link and the link. I give a pass to the A’s since they have history and had an A on there hat since they were in link. The link also get a pass since it’s been on their cap since link
The link are a weird one but at least Anaheim is still in their team name.

[quote comment=”16724″]Sorry if this comes across as stupid or blasphemous, but this is a thought that’s been kicking around in my head for a little while.

We here all seem to agree that Detroit’s home uniforms are one fo the best in baseball, but their road unis could use some improvement. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it make sense for the Tigers to have their road uniforms be a gray version of their home uniforms? Doesn’t that make sense to anyone else?

It’s not just the Tigers, either. I think quite a few teams could benefit from this, just like the Cardinals already do. The Yankees spring to mind immediately for one.

I guess I just don’t get why most teams still go with the city name for road uniforms and the nickname/logo for home uniforms, especially because one always looks better than the other. Why make things more difficult than they need to be?

If anyone is a whiz at Photoshop, I’d love to see what a gray version of the Tigers’ home uniform would look like.[/quote]

link. But I still like seeing the name of the city/state on road jerseys.

Interesting- the MLB teams that don’t have their home locale’s name on their road jerseys (excl alternates of course): Angels (what would you even put?), Brewers, Cards, and Orioles. That’s it. Am I missing any?[/quote]

Being from Baltimore it really bugs me that Orioles still have the word Orioles on their road jerseys instead of Baltimore. The teams reasoning behind this was to not limit their fans only to Baltimorians but anyone in the area. Until the Expos moved down the street this made sense but it doesn’t anymore.

We need a movement to get “Baltimore” back on the O’s road jersey’s. They should look like link.

The Cardinals could do the birds and bat with a script St. Louis on road greys. That would be pretty sweet.

Thanks for everyone who responded to my question. I probably should have checked the history of the Tigers uniforms beforehand, but now the problem is that I’m spending too much time searching through that website and not enough time doing actual work. (The D on the gray does look sweet, better than what they have now, in my opinion).

As far as the city name goes, I see your point. Being a Red Sox fan from Syracuse, though, the city pride thing never really applied to me.

I don’t see anything Uni Watch-related in Bill Buckner’s Wikipedia entry (other than the factoid that he was the first major leaguer to wear Nike high tops). No mention of the double curse. Did it get deleted, or is it just that I can’t read?

[quote comment=”16804″]I don’t see anything Uni Watch-related in Bill Buckner’s Wikipedia entry (other than the factoid that he was the first major leaguer to wear Nike high tops). No mention of the double curse. Did it get deleted, or is it just that I can’t read?[/quote]

Correct it was deleted when the “trivia” section was changed to “references in popular culture”

Someone else who obviously doesn’t “get it”…

[quote comment=”16792″][quote comment=”16724″]Sorry if this comes across as stupid or blasphemous, but this is a thought that’s been kicking around in my head for a little while.

We here all seem to agree that Detroit’s home uniforms are one fo the best in baseball, but their road unis could use some improvement. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it make sense for the Tigers to have their road uniforms be a gray version of their home uniforms? Doesn’t that make sense to anyone else?

It’s not just the Tigers, either. I think quite a few teams could benefit from this, just like the Cardinals already do. The Yankees spring to mind immediately for one.

I guess I just don’t get why most teams still go with the city name for road uniforms and the nickname/logo for home uniforms, especially because one always looks better than the other. Why make things more difficult than they need to be?

If anyone is a whiz at Photoshop, I’d love to see what a gray version of the Tigers’ home uniform would look like.[/quote]

link. But I still like seeing the name of the city/state on road jerseys.

Interesting- the MLB teams that don’t have their home locale’s name on their road jerseys (excl alternates of course): Angels (what would you even put?), Brewers, Cards, and Orioles. That’s it. Am I missing any?[/quote]

Being from Baltimore it really bugs me that Orioles still have the word Orioles on their road jerseys instead of Baltimore. The teams reasoning behind this was to not limit their fans only to Baltimorians but anyone in the area. Until the Expos moved down the street this made sense but it doesn’t anymore.

We need a movement to get “Baltimore” back on the O’s road jersey’s. They should look like link.[/quote]

It needs to be pointed out that the black sleeves beneath that jersey is PREFECT! Did all Orioles wear such short sleeves during that era? I recall Boog did, but he’s a special case. Can anyone help?

Sometimes the alternate jersey look works. Classic teams for some reason just don’t do it for me. While I’m sure the red alternate jersey for the cardinals would probably look good, I agree it should be left to batting practice. Alternates can ruin looks like link but sometimes it works like link but maybe that’s just because I hate the sand colored uniforms that I don’t think the blue’s look bad. One alternate that I haven’t seen for years and maybe should head to Paul’s Island of Misfit Uniforms are the Giant’s black tops which were worn when Bonds hit his 71st homerun link which they also wore on the road with the San Francisco script. They used to wear the balcks on friday night home games with this link which I did kind of like. Any ideas where they went Paul?

I think we all agree that the Cards should have the “birds on a bat”, (sounds like state fair food). But one thing I liked about the ’56 jersey was the link It kind of reminds me of Detroit’s “Swinging Kitty”.

D12, Eminem’s rap group from Detroit uses the link in their logo.

i think the braves would look much better with Navy blue than Red for an alternate… same with the Red Sox…

Big ol’ Dave Kindred wrote an entire article on Reyes’ flat bill for the newest edition of Sporting News. I really don’t mind it, he really rips on him.

[quote comment=”16775″]Angels (what would you even put?)[/quote]

Los Angehiem?

[quote comment=”16830″]i think the braves would look much better with Navy blue than Red for an alternate… same with the Red Sox…[/quote]

I like the red Sundays for the Red Sox, but I wish they’d wear the red hat/navy brim they did in the 70s with it.

just got an e-mail about this — link

ever so slight changes. no pics yet, but hope to find some

[quote comment=”16844″][quote comment=”16836″]Big ol’ Dave Kindred wrote an entire article on Reyes’ flat bill for the newest edition of Sporting News. I really don’t mind it, he really rips on him.[/quote]

Full article link.[/quote]
He also rips on Reyes’ striped socks.

Oh, and I just have to say it: I like the flat brim of Reyes’ hat. Let the flaming begin.

[quote comment=”16745″][quote comment=”16740″]id love to see a cardinals home alternate red with the St.L on it, similar to the cincinnati alternate. and then a road alternate navy as well.[/quote]

I agree, the red alternate would look good, like Cincinnati’s (hopefully better than Atlanta’s, anyway), but I don’t know about a navy alternate.[/quote]

The Cardinals DID have a Navy Blue batting practice jersey a few years ago…I had a Willie McGee # 52…I’ve always loved the navy with the birds and bat…wish they would bring them back

Anyone here see link in last week’s SI about sweatshirts? Not exactly “uni”, but close enough to be a good read for the majority of this crowd probably. I thought it was good anyway.
Sorry, you can only read the article if you subscribe to SI.

[quote comment=”16822″]I think we all agree that the Cards should have the “birds on a bat”, (sounds like state fair food). But one thing I liked about the ’56 jersey was the link It kind of reminds me of Detroit’s “Swinging Kitty”.[/quote]

Believe it or not but that little guy actually has a name link. He actually use to be more of the secondary logo before they designed the present one on the BP cap. Best part was when there was a rain delay, they put that as the graphic up with an umbrella instead of a bat.

Dave Kindred is not a good writer…I’m not saying that because I disagree with the content of his article.

I’m not a big fan of Reyes’ hat. I think he looks stupid with the flat brim but his socks look good enough to make up for it.

I always say if a player thinks he has a competitive advantage by wearing his uniform in a certain way, he should do it no matter how silly it might look. If Reyes really thinks he can see better with his brim flat, I have no problem with it. Well except for the fact that I hate the Cardinals and want Reyes to pitch horribly.

[quote comment=”16811″][quote comment=”16804″]I don’t see anything Uni Watch-related in Bill Buckner’s Wikipedia entry (other than the factoid that he was the first major leaguer to wear Nike high tops). No mention of the double curse. Did it get deleted, or is it just that I can’t read?[/quote]

Wow, sure enough, the reference is gone! It was there yesterday. Man, Wikipedia-ville is one bizarre place.[/quote]

The bizarre-ness continues … the reference is now BACK. Here’s the pertinent part, in case they decide to delete it again:

Buckner was wearing a Chicago Cubs batting glove underneath his fielding mitt when he committed the infamous game 6 error[1].

Under “References,” it links to Paul’s story in Page 2.

The Cardinals DID have a Navy Blue batting practice jersey a few years ago…I had a Willie McGee # 52…I’ve always loved the navy with the birds and bat…wish they would bring them back[ersey for fan use.

Willie was #51, and that jersey was never worn during BP… just sold as an alt.

The St. Louis on the jerseys is a great idea, but they need to start making the authentic road jerseys look like authentic jerseys. Now, if you buy a gray Cardinal jersey, the Birds on a Bat have a white outline around them. The ones worn on the field are applied directly to the gray.

Here’s one for everyone who feels bad when their team tries something like using black as their base color to honor Chief Nike. I feel better now. link No, it still hurts.

Not again. Ek?????

This should not be in italics.

Ek!!!!!

[quote comment=”16891″]Please close all tags. Thanks.[/quote]

Thank you, Ek. Is there any way for one of us peons—the non-colored boxes—to fix the problem when it occurs again so we don’t have to come whining to you?

Does anyone else notice that Ted Ginn wears a link Seems like that wouldn’t be very safe.

As are the Habs. I might need to pick up that Bruins jersey, it looks fantastic.

[quote comment=”16712″]In the Predators photo, anybody else thing that the jersey makes Dumont on the far right looks like he is wearing a girdle?[/quote]
Looks more like the RBK hybrid pants they are really popular now and comfortable i have a pair. link

I think that the new hockey jerseys look a lot like link. With that, maybe it’s because I’m a football guy, but I’m in the minority I suppose: I don’t really mind the change.

Oh, and…[quote comment=”16907″][quote comment=”16898″]Does anyone else notice that Ted Ginn wears a link Seems like that wouldn’t be very safe.[/quote]

Ted Ginn has been wearing this facemask all year, usually with a shield. How have you not seen this are you a Michigan player just now studying game film of the BEST TEAM in the Nation.[/quote]

I only hope that, by responding as such, you succeeded in validating yourself.

It does look like a punter mask, all the pics I see look like he got a normal mask with shield on it.

As bad as Clemson looked last week, they’re the best looking team on the field by a long shot. The all white looks pretty classy. The all purple looked, well, words can’t describe how bad that looked.

[quote comment=”16898″]Does anyone else notice that Ted Ginn wears a link Seems like that wouldn’t be very safe.[/quote]
Could this pic be doctored, because it has the sheild clips (black rubber on the bottom, and the shield top that slied under the top of the mask and have logos on) but no shield that I can see.?. Weird.

[quote comment=”16756″]Also of note is how RPI wears different colored helmets and pants with their home and aways. Are there any other colleges that do that?[/quote]

Washington State has used (and is still using?) both silver and crimson (garnet, maroon, whatever) helmets on a home/away basis. link.

[quote comment=”16753″]For what it’s worth, Cardinals’ principal owner Bill DeWitt has been quoted as saying the team is considering “tweaking” the road uniforms next season… replacing the “Cardinals” script with “St. Louis”… but keeping the “Birds On The Bat” logo. The Cards used a link in 1930, which lasted through 1932. Since then, they’ve worn “Cardinals” and the “Birds On The Bat” except for “Frantic Frank’s” failed experiment in the 1950s.[/quote]

Let me just jump on board as another Cardinals fan who would be very much in favor of such a development. Those jerseys look fantastic (though the retro certainly doesn’t hurt them any, either).

would “retrocitude” be the correct noun to use in such a situation? Not familiar with the etymology of “retro”…

Paul,
Extremely off topic, but when are we gonna get around to covering the new D’Backs logos? I want to know what you and everyone else thinks about ’em. I like them.

looks so damn good………

link

[quote comment=”16940″]Tonight’s game made up my mind for me. That Bruins 3rd sweater will be mine.[/quote]
It(Bobby Orr jerz) was almost mine…but fate intervened

UGH

Colored jerseys belong in Spring Training and Batting Practice. Not in a MLB game.[/quote]

No — they are a tradition. Such as:
NY Giants (1905, 1906, 1911)
Reds (1901, 1902, 1903, 1910, 1911)
Cubs (1911, 1912, 1913)
NY Highlanders (Yankees)1903, 1904, 1906
White Sox (1902 – 1914 and beyond)

Since I loves me some hockey, here’s my take on a few things.

I like everything about the Boston alternates. The lace-up neck line reminds me of link except for one thing: learn how to tie the laces across, and not wear a bow at the end. Equipment mangaers, take note: I’m putting you on notice. Fix the laces on the neck. You’re in charge of jerseys. Make them right.

Also, gotta hand it to the Barney Rubble Hairpieces for winning their 10th straight game to open the season, and tie the Maple Leafs’ record. Kudos to Lindy Ruff and Darcy Regier, as well as the players in the Barney Rubble Hairpieces’ organization. If they can beat the Thrashers on Saturday night, they’ll be the hottest team to start an NHL season. Atlanta is 3-0-1 away from home, so this tilt on Saturday should be a doozy.

I’m out. Later, gators!

As much as I love tradition in the Cardinals uniform, the Sunday cap is one of the newer elements that I don’t mind so much. And the bird on the bat, as well as the navy hat with a red bill is founded deep in Cardinal tradition.

What I would like to see is the Sunday cap being worn on the road again. They only wear it at home. When it was first introduced in 1999, I remember seeing them wear it on the road a few times. It looked great with the road grays. But for some reason, it has become a home-only hat.

Sorry for the extreme bold text on my comment above. I obviously clicked something by accident.

Go Cards. They win tonight, they can wear anything they want next year… Okay that’s not true, but as much as I love uni’s, I love my birds more.

I’m gonna need some help out there…I was just watching the WS Game 5 (still am watching, actually), and while my beloved tigers had yet another failed at bat in the top of the 8th, i noticed Jeff weaver’s hat had some severe dye bleeding in the logo. the STL was definitely pink from the red in his cap. Does anyone have MLBtv or DVR to get that screen shot?

My Kenny Rogers column was briefly mentioned by a caller on WFAN’s Skipper and Gilligan show yesterday (apologies to Phil Mushnick for stealing his joke), so I called the station to tell them I’d be happy to discuss the matter on the air. Got connected to a producer and could almost feel his eyes glazing over as I explained the Rogers situation to him — a card-carrying member of the Doesn’t Get Itâ„¢ camp.

Mike and the Mad Dog from the WFAN dissected the story and did a terrific job investigating the images from earlier in the season. The story is all about the hand not the hat. Sorry.

[quote comment=”16919″]I truly wish I could find a better pic but how awesome would the interlocking LA in the top-center of link look on an Angels’ alternate cap. Maybe even a jersey. Of course, that logo isn’t even official, but it still looks damn good. Sorry about the pic quality. It is whitewashed because it is a background on an Angels fan site[/quote]

HORRIBLE, that’s how it’d look. The A on the hats stands for Anaheim. Anything else would be blasphemous.

lwk