By Phil Hecken
In a week that has seen several new uniform introductions, as well as the first wearing of another, the Chicago Bears have chosen to save the best for last. And boy, it’s a beauty.
Seeking to channel the Bears’ glory years, the Chicago football squad will honor the original “Monsters of the Midway,” and have introduced a new alternate (throwback) uniform of from the 1940’s for selected games this season (NFL rules permit them to wear the uniform up to three times). Those “Monsters of the Midway” dominated the 1940s, winning four NFL titles in seven seasons (1940, 1941, 1943 and 1946), and were led by Hall of Famers Danny Fortmann, Sid Luckman, George McAfee, George Musso, Bronko Nagurski (read more about him here), Joe Stydahar and Clyde “Bulldog” Turner.
But why were they called the “Monsters of the Midway,” and just why were they so dominant? The Bears, one of the original members of the NFL, had won three championships prior to the 1940s — in 1921 (as the Chicago Staleys), and back-to-back in 1932 & 1933, but they were truly THE dominant team in the early and mid-forties (and quite possibly could have won even more than the 4 titles they captured in that decade had not World War II decimated most NFL squads). Led by their Hall of Fame Coach George Halas (who played for the Bears previously), much of the success of the teams of the 40s can be traced to the 1939 & 1940 drafts, which yielded their QB, Sid Luckman, running back Bill Osmanski, guard Ray Bray (in 1939) and (thru a trade with the Eagles) running back George McAfee. McAfee and Osmanski served as the perfect compliments to each other, an olden-day “thunder and lightning.”
By 1940, it was obvious the Bears were something special. They started the season 6-2, with the next game against George Preston Marshall’s Washington Redskins, in D.C. The Bears would lose that game 7-3, but Marshall was quoted in the newsprint as saying Halas and his Bears were “crybabies,” “quitters,” and “frontruners.” This was not a particularly wise move on Marshall’s part. Buoyed by these words, Halas led the Bears to two more wins to close out the season, and as fate would have it — the Bears and Redskins would meet for the 1940 title game. You may have heard about what happened that fateful day of December 8, 1940: the Bears eked out a 73-0 victory, the largest margin of defeat in NFL history. Halas had to rest his regulars to keep the game from getting out of hand and, at one point, the referees asked the Bears to stop kicking extra points, as they were running out of balls (which at that time were kicked into the crowd and not returned). This would lead some to argue, not without validity then or now, that the 1940 Bears were the best football squad ever assembled.
Part of the success of the 1940 team, and their absolute destruction of the Redskins in the Championship game, would undoubtedly be due to Halas introducing the “T Formation,” in which three running backs line up behind the passer. Although the “T” itself was ‘invented’ in the 1880s, it was never used with more success than in the 1940s, particularly with Luckman under center. While the obvious emphasis, with three men in the backfield, is on running, innovations on the gridiron during the time — like the smaller football — had led to more passing, and a faster-paced, higher scoring game.
While no team would dominate as did those 1940 Bears (at least in terms of the end result), the Bears during the decade would see tremendous success. In 1941, with America on the brink of war, the Bears introduced their fight song, “Bear Down Chicago Bears,” (you can listen to it here). The ’41 campaign would be as successful as 1940, as they finished 10-1 (losing only to the Packers by a mere two points). They’d pay the Pack back by defeating them 33-14 in the final game before the playoffs, and would take their second straight championship by knocking off the New York Giants, 37-9 at Wrigley Field. Unfortunately for the Bears, and the nation, that game was played a mere 2 weeks after a seminal event in the nation’s history, and all understood that everything would change after that.
The War, and the volunteers/draft, would take their toll on the NFL in 1942, as the talent pool of players shrunk, and while the Bears continued in operation, many teams would be hard-hit financially and in the player department (in 1943, the Eagles and Steelers merged to form the “Steagles”, and in 1944, the Steelers and Cardinals would merge to form the “Car-pits” [read more about them here]). But although the Bears would continue to function during the war, they did lose something even greater, when Papa Bear entered the Navy in October of 1942. The Bears would continue to dominate in that season, but fell short of the Championship, losing the 1942 to the Redskins, 14-6.
1943 would prove to be an amazing season for the Bears, as Bronko Nagurski, who had retired following the 1937 season, was talked into returning to the Bears for one season. Although he mostly played tackle, he did return to his old running back position for several games. And in yet another unforgettable moment in an unforgettable run, Halas would return to the sidelines, in his Navy uniform, to watch the Bears avenge their 1942 defeat, trouncing the Redskins 41-21, in the 1943 Championship game.
The War would really take it’s toll on the Bears in its final two years, and the Monsters of the Midway would prove mortal. Playing to records of 6-3-1 in 1944 and dropping to 3-7 in 1945, the Bears would not return to the title game in those years. They began 1945 0-5, but following the War’s end, they’d begin to get their stars back during the end of the season, ending up 3-2 for the final 5 weeks, and setting up one last return to glory in 1946.
Most of the great players from 1940-41 returned to the team following World War II, older, wiser, and definitely battle ready. They would return to the pinnacle one last time, defeating the New York Giants 24-14, in 1945, completing their 4th title in 7 years (and how many more might they have won had not WW II intervened?), easily one of the greatest runs in NFL history.
The Bears would remain competitive throughout the end of the decade, but never quite returned to the glory of the previous years.
Aided by UW Historian Timmy Brulia, lets take a look at the Bears uniforms thoughout the 1940s and have a look at what the Bears chose to emulate as they begin play in 2010 with their gorgeous throwback.
The 1940 season would be the last one the Bears would wear white until 1957, when they were required to by the NFL. The uniform was remarkably similar to the one worn today, and was also worn in the late 1930’s. It was a white jersey with three stripes (blue, orange, blue) on the arm, with blue pants and striped blue socks. At practice Sid Luckman liked to go stirrupless (as you’ll see in later pics), and the jersey numerals were standard block.
1941-1946 would see the introduction of one of the jerseys to which the Bears are “harking” back. Navy blue, with three orange stripes, less blocky numbers (almost McAuliffe-esque in style), which were also orange in color. The pants were white, almost identical to today, with a blue-orange-blue stripe with blue socks with 3 orange stripes (that classic picture is from New Year’s Eve, 1941 — Bears workout at the Polo Grounds in preparation for their game against the All-Star team in aid of the Navy Relief Fund). Love those Chucks too.
This shot, taken in 1943, shows the Bears at Wrigley prepping for the Championship Game which would take place a few days later (and which they would avenge their loss the previous year to the Redskins). Pictured there are Dante Magnani; Harry Clarke; Bronko Nagurski and Sid Luckman. Another interesting shot from this period shows Luckman and Bulldog Turner — Tim notes that Sid is not wearing 42, the jersey is hanging out, his pants are missing the navy stripes, and he’s bare legged.
In 1947 (and early 1948), the Bears would change up their uniform slightly, adding thicker numbers and some additional serifing. The pants would retain the navy-orange-navy pattern, and blue stirrup socks with three orange stirpes. Just a gorgeous, gorgeous uniform, and basically the version on which the new throwback is based.
As the 1948 season wore on, the Bears would again tweak their jersey slightly, returning to the old font style and adding white outlines around the numbers. They would still wear blue leather helmets thoroughout the decade. I just love this photograph of Bobby Lane, Sid Luckman and Johnny Lujack from the 1948 season.
In 1949 and into the 1950’s and beyond, the Bears would make the ‘final transition’ to the modern jersey, adding the white numerals in rounded font. That uniform, except for a few minor modifications (like adding TV numbers in 1956) and going to block numbers in the 1970’s, would remain as it is today. So (with the exception of the Thanksgiving throwback in 2004, and the 1994 NFL 75th Anniversary throwback — which looked um…great from the front, but from the back?…not so much), the “new” alternate will only mark the third time the Bears will have delved deep into their illustrious history for a throwback uniform. And with the exception of bringing back this little striped number from the 1930’s, the Bears have made a fantastic choice.
So, how’d they do? Early screengrabs from a handheld video are tough to good feel, but Earl Bennett tweeted a photo from the unveiling. The pants, helmet and socks look good though. Check out the video. Hopefully more updates will be available. If you guys come across any, be sure to post pics in the comments below.
So what’s the verdict, Uni Watchers? Did Da Bears score six with this throwback? That pretty much makes for a bee-you-tiful NFC Norris Division throwback contingent. Now, if only two of those teams would make their throwbacks permanent, we’d be talkin’.
From The Squiddie Files: Back again with our Life Coach, Lance Smith, who’s back with more great stuff. Today’s entry comes from Japan, where the major leagues used to open their season…Ok, that wasn’t so long ago, but MLB’s history and interaction with Japanese baseball goes far beyond the few “MLB Japan Series” played earlier this decade. So, let’s sit back while Squiddie takes us on the way back bus to the Land of the Rising Sun. Here’s Lance:
One of the names you might be surprised to find in the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame is Lefty O’Doul. Best known for managing the San Francisco Seals from 1937 to 1951, O’Doul was also involved with the organization of baseball in Japan in the 1930s. He helped organize one of the first professional Japanese baseball team, the Yomiuri Giants, and is thought to have come up with the teams name and colors. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2002.
In 1949, O’Doul led the San Francisco Seals on the first post-war tour of Japan by American players. The seven game tour was a success and in 1950 O’Doul was asked if he could organize a team of major league players for another tour. O’Doul teamed up with Joe DiMaggio to form the Joe DiMaggio and Lefty O’Doul All-Stars, a twenty man squad of players from the majors and the Pacific Coast League. The team included Dom DiMaggio, Eddie Lopat, Ferris Fain and Billy Martin. The UPI reported that a million fans turned out for the arrival of the team in Tokyo. The team would go 13-1-2 losing a game to the Pacific League All-Stars on November 13th.
In December, after the tour, Joe DiMaggio announced his retirement from baseball making these his final professional games. Some histories of Japanese baseball note that there was a certain national pride that DiMaggio’s final home run with hit in Japan.
Let’s look at some photos.
Joe DiMaggio and Lefty O’Doul.
O’Doul and Giants manager Shigeru Mizuhara talk with the umpires. Gotta love those bow ties.
Teams and fans. (I like the penguin.)
Lefty addresses the fan.
Does anyone recognize this Indian?
You know how you sometimes see some athletes with their digicams out like at the opening ceremonies at the Olympics? Other than the technology, some things haven’t changed much. (I believe those are Joe Tipton and Eddie Lopat.)
Photo opportunity. The players seemed to be wearing happi coats. (Meiji makes candy and other food products.)
Pepsi product placement.
O’Doul, Mel Parnell and Tipton get into a rhubarb about the strike zone. Apparently, it was resolved amicably.
The press corps gets some dugout shots.
Great stuff as always. Thanks, Lance!
Now I’ve seen everything. Benchies has gone and done the unthinkable. Black for Black’s sake. No really…here’s Rick:
Ever fantasized about meeting someone famous? Of course you have. We all have. Well, in BenchiesLand things are no different. And sometimes it seems, just for a moment, that it’s actually happening.
Here’s your … ahem … “full color” Sunday Benchies.
Guess The Game From The Scoreboard: This one’s not particularly tricky, and if you play the game often enough, you’ll notice it has been used before, but not this particular photo. That’s all the hint you’ll get. 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!
Back 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 is the pseudonymous Coachie Ballgames, who has ‘cracked’ the 2011 “Mets code”…right?
(A couple weeks ago the) Uniwatch ticker reported, via MetsBlog, that the Mets might ditch the blue piping on their black uniforms next season.
I’ve attached two images showing what the black uni would look like sans piping and what the all-white uni would look like sans piping.
It’s different, but certainly not a drastic change.Regards,
Coachie Ballgames
Next up is Joel Zimmerman, who has “about 50” NHL tweaks, but he’s sharing 2 of them with us today:
I have at least like 50 “uni tweaks” for hockey I could send in, they all look pretty similar and are made with templates, they’re not concepts and have no different logos, but they are pretty sweet in my opinion, I’m no whiz with these programs. So, should I send them in??
Here’s a basic example some basic examples:
Closing out the tweak show today is Britton Thomas, who’s a Braves fan. Enough said:
I am a Braves fan and fairly avid Uni Watch reader. The Braves debuted alternate navy jerseys and navy billed hats in ’08. They were used sparingly at first, but now it is a rare treat when they break out the traditional grays. I love the Braves home whites and road grays, and I can tolerate the Sunday red jerseys, but I am struggling with the onslaught of navy. These uniforms are flawed on several levels.
My first issue with the navy jerseys is that they are not consistent with the Braves’ other jerseys. There is no trim around the neck or sleeves. Their other three jerseys have trim. This look leaves them a pit stain and side stripe shy of looking like spring training jerseys. I would argue that the Braves spring jerseys actually look better than these, because they have red lettering. Both the Atlanta script across the chest and the numbers on the back are navy. This makes for a bland uniform. It also makes the numbers harder to read. (Although that’s more of an issue in basketball). No pick me up from the hats either. All navy hats work for the Yankees, but I’m not loving them on the Braves.
Color on color can look alright. The Rays make the navy numbers, navy jerseys look tolerable. I think it’s the white pants…or the light blue piping. This effect looks better with brighter colors. The Angels look okay in red on red. It might look okay on the Braves’ red jerseys, but those jerseys have navy script. So why don’t the navy jerseys have red lettering?
My concept is simple enough. I took the Braves navy jersey, added some piping for consistency, and inverted the color scheme from the red alternates. I would throw in some stirrups (notice Andruw in this pitcure), but it’s a lost cause. No current Brave wears em high. I also did away with the nameplates on the back. Anyway, this is not a solution, but I think a significant improvement over what we are currently dealing with. You can see my rendition here.
-Britton Thomas
Thanks to everyone for their tweaks today. Check back next time for more.
Thus endeth another Sunday post. Everyone have a good one today. And let’s hear your thoughts (and any pics you may find) on the new Bears unis. Best “new” look of 2010, by far.
The Bears are front-runners. Quitters. They are not a second-half team, just a bunch of cry-babies. – George Preston Marshall
I’m going to go on record as not liking the Bears throwbacks. That number font, accurate that it may be, sucks.
Jeff, I’m offsetting your vote…I love the Bears throwbacks. Vikings, too. The Lions throwbacks beat their black-trimmed regular set, but I wish they’d pull out their 60’s look.
The Cardinals black alts make them look like the Falcons…not good.
Nice pictures of the Japanese tour. Joe D. retired after the 1951 season. The unidentified Indian is probably Max Patkin.
I think the player shown with Eddie Lopat is Ferris Fain
Put me down as a fan of the Bears throwbacks. I just wish the numbers were bigger.
Here we go again.
So if a friend dresses as Sonny Bono for Halloween—long sleeve teeshirt under a fur vest, with striped bellbottoms, beads and a headband—and I say, “Man, that’s outfit sucks”…how would that be even remotely relevant? Or insightful?
It’s what ol’ Sonny wore back then.
That’s the point.
If I say, “Man, they had a strange sense of fashion in those days, didn’t they.” That’s at least a valid observation.
Or, in the case of the Bears’ throwback, “That font is really thick, isn’t it. But, then again, they were concerned only with what people could see from the stands. TV wasn’t involved.”
Applying the 2010 filter to everything shows an inability to get outside ourselves or to reason that times might have been different, and what those differences might have been.
If we can’t do that, then I suppose, we could write a letter to George Halas with our suggestions (starting with “your fat front font sucks”) and back date it 70 years.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387523″]Here we go again.
So if a friend dresses as Sonny Bono for Halloween—long sleeve teeshirt under a fur vest, with striped bellbottoms, beads and a headband—and I say, “Man, that’s outfit sucks”…how would that be even remotely relevant? Or insightful?
It’s what ol’ Sonny wore back then.
That’s the point.
If I say, “Man, they had a strange sense of fashion in those days, didn’t they.” That’s at least a valid observation.
Or, in the case of the Bears’ throwback, “That font is really thick, isn’t it. But, then again, they were concerned only with what people could see from the stands. TV wasn’t involved.”
Applying the 2010 filter to everything shows an inability to get outside ourselves or to reason that times might have been different, and what those differences might have been.
If we can’t do that, then I suppose, we could write a letter to George Halas with our suggestions (starting with “your fat front font sucks”) and back date it 70 years.
—Ricko[/quote]
Oh shut up Ricko. What do you want me to say? It’s accurate. Great. Wonderful job, Chicago! They get an A+ and a banana sticker.
The numbers are still thick and ugly and I don’t like it. Or to tie into your Sonny Bono thing… “Great costume dude, but why did want to dress like a dead guy? Watch out for that tree…”
[quote comment=”387524″][quote comment=”387523″]Here we go again.
So if a friend dresses as Sonny Bono for Halloween—long sleeve teeshirt under a fur vest, with striped bellbottoms, beads and a headband—and I say, “Man, that’s outfit sucks”…how would that be even remotely relevant? Or insightful?
It’s what ol’ Sonny wore back then.
That’s the point.
If I say, “Man, they had a strange sense of fashion in those days, didn’t they.” That’s at least a valid observation.
Or, in the case of the Bears’ throwback, “That font is really thick, isn’t it. But, then again, they were concerned only with what people could see from the stands. TV wasn’t involved.”
Applying the 2010 filter to everything shows an inability to get outside ourselves or to reason that times might have been different, and what those differences might have been.
If we can’t do that, then I suppose, we could write a letter to George Halas with our suggestions (starting with “your fat front font sucks”) and back date it 70 years.
—Ricko[/quote]
Oh shut up Ricko. What do you want me to say? It’s accurate. Great. Wonderful job, Chicago! They get an A+ and a banana sticker.
The numbers are still thick and ugly and I don’t like it. Or to tie into your Sonny Bono thing… “Great costume dude, but why did want to dress like a dead guy? Watch out for that tree…”[/quote]
Only the view from 2010 matters.
It’s the touchstone for everything.
The one true standard.
All things are to be viewed from that vantage point.
If it doesn’t work for today, it’s wrong.
Got it.
—Ricko
“Why would you go to a costume party wearing a stupid powdered wig and faggy white silk stockings?”
“Um…probably because I went as George Washington.”
Oh, wait, why would I want to go as a dead guy.
Never mind.
[quote comment=”387525″][quote comment=”387524″][quote comment=”387523″]Here we go again.
So if a friend dresses as Sonny Bono for Halloween—long sleeve teeshirt under a fur vest, with striped bellbottoms, beads and a headband—and I say, “Man, that’s outfit sucks”…how would that be even remotely relevant? Or insightful?
It’s what ol’ Sonny wore back then.
That’s the point.
If I say, “Man, they had a strange sense of fashion in those days, didn’t they.” That’s at least a valid observation.
Or, in the case of the Bears’ throwback, “That font is really thick, isn’t it. But, then again, they were concerned only with what people could see from the stands. TV wasn’t involved.”
Applying the 2010 filter to everything shows an inability to get outside ourselves or to reason that times might have been different, and what those differences might have been.
If we can’t do that, then I suppose, we could write a letter to George Halas with our suggestions (starting with “your fat front font sucks”) and back date it 70 years.
—Ricko[/quote]
Oh shut up Ricko. What do you want me to say? It’s accurate. Great. Wonderful job, Chicago! They get an A+ and a banana sticker.
The numbers are still thick and ugly and I don’t like it. Or to tie into your Sonny Bono thing… “Great costume dude, but why did want to dress like a dead guy? Watch out for that tree…”[/quote]
Only the view from 2010 matters.
It’s the touchstone for everything.
The one true standard.
All things are to be viewed from that vantage point.
If it doesn’t work for today, it’s wrong.
Got it.
—Ricko[/quote]
Maybe if throwbacks weren’t getting tossed around with reckless abandon, I might care a little more about the historical viewpoint. However, it seems as though wearing a throwback uniform is quickly becoming as trendy as adding a black alternate jersey.
[quote comment=”387527″][quote comment=”387525″][quote comment=”387524″][quote comment=”387523″]Here we go again.
So if a friend dresses as Sonny Bono for Halloween—long sleeve teeshirt under a fur vest, with striped bellbottoms, beads and a headband—and I say, “Man, that’s outfit sucks”…how would that be even remotely relevant? Or insightful?
It’s what ol’ Sonny wore back then.
That’s the point.
If I say, “Man, they had a strange sense of fashion in those days, didn’t they.” That’s at least a valid observation.
Or, in the case of the Bears’ throwback, “That font is really thick, isn’t it. But, then again, they were concerned only with what people could see from the stands. TV wasn’t involved.”
Applying the 2010 filter to everything shows an inability to get outside ourselves or to reason that times might have been different, and what those differences might have been.
If we can’t do that, then I suppose, we could write a letter to George Halas with our suggestions (starting with “your fat front font sucks”) and back date it 70 years.
—Ricko[/quote]
Oh shut up Ricko. What do you want me to say? It’s accurate. Great. Wonderful job, Chicago! They get an A+ and a banana sticker.
The numbers are still thick and ugly and I don’t like it. Or to tie into your Sonny Bono thing… “Great costume dude, but why did want to dress like a dead guy? Watch out for that tree…”[/quote]
Only the view from 2010 matters.
It’s the touchstone for everything.
The one true standard.
All things are to be viewed from that vantage point.
If it doesn’t work for today, it’s wrong.
Got it.
—Ricko[/quote]
Maybe if throwbacks weren’t getting tossed around with reckless abandon, I might care a little more about the historical viewpoint. However, it seems as though wearing a throwback uniform is quickly becoming as trendy as adding a black alternate jersey.[/quote]
Oh, man, you got that right. What used to charming and intriguing is being reduced to “just another gimmick” because of all the other crap thrown into the mix. Alts, black jerseys for Halloween, Nike’s Combat bullshit, 12,000 different Oregon combinations, most of them butt-ugly and virtually irrelevant to school colors, Nike’s other “sports costumes”…
btw, The Jeff…something that had nothing to do with you set me off this morning. And while I didn’t see eye-to-eye to with you, I most certainly was, well…overly venomous.
Sorry.
(although the George Washington costume analogy was pretty good, lol)
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387519″]I’m going to go on record as not liking the Bears throwbacks. That number font, accurate that it may be, sucks.[/quote]
and the fact that it, at least from first glance, is historically accurate…not to mention the fact that the bears “got it” matters not…you just don’t like it
fair point…and you’re entitled to your opinion of the uni based on your maddenesque expectations for 2010
but you’re wrong…that uniform is gorgeous…beautifully simplistic yet with classic signature elements that have survived until this day; a color scheme that works well
bears nailed it
Even though I actually kinda like the Bears’ orange alternate jerseys, I’m not going to miss them this year (or at all if they’re permanently retired). These are nice. Plus, there’s a lot of orange on them, so it’s a good departure from the everyday look.
Sure, I’d have rather seen an orange throwback or the multi-striped white one, but this will do.
It also seems that most teams’ throwbacks look better than their current unis (Bills, Vikings, Lions, Chargers, Falcons, Patriots…). That’s not the case with this one. It’s a good reminder that older is not always better. Although the Bears “modern” look isn’t exactly a modern look.
A couple gripes. Why does the NFL insist on making teams wear the NOB for throwbacks? And must we see the NFL shield all over the place?
Oh, and gray facemasks aren’t link, are they?
So are the Giants still planning to roll out a throwback look at some point this season?
Big thumbs up = what a contrast – two teams with long histories, one comes up with a boring, BFBS uni – Az Cardinals, the other produces one that a lot of us will be looking forward to seeing live. Is the helmet finished for the Bears throwback relatively matted – i.e not highly glossed – it appears so.
[quote comment=”387529″][quote comment=”387519″]I’m going to go on record as not liking the Bears throwbacks. That number font, accurate that it may be, sucks.[/quote]
and the fact that it, at least from first glance, is historically accurate…not to mention the fact that the bears “got it” matters not…you just don’t like it
fair point…and you’re entitled to your opinion of the uni based on your maddenesque expectations for 2010
but you’re wrong…that uniform is gorgeous…beautifully simplistic yet with classic signature elements that have survived until this day; a color scheme that works well
bears nailed it[/quote]
Yes Phil, they did a throwback properly. Has it really reached a point where that’s an achievement worth spending a whole day discussing? If liking it isn’t important, then the entire comment section today might as well just be this:
“Hey man, you see those new Bears throwbacks?”
“Yep”
“Looks like what they wore 55 years ago, eh?”
“Yep”
“Those were some thick numbers, huh?”
“Yep, but that’s what they wore”
“Yep, sure was”
“At least they didn’t screw it up like them damn Packers went and messed up their throwbacks”
“Yep”
“Well, I’m gonna go watch TV now…”
[quote comment=”387532″]
Yes Phil, they did a throwback properly. Has it really reached a point where that’s an achievement worth spending a whole day discussing?[/quote]
you really don’t get UW do you?
No tweaks today?
[quote comment=”387534″]No tweaks today?[/quote]
FUCK
hold on…i’ll go back and add them
ok….tweaks back in (that’s what happens when i put these things together at 2:30 am)
[quote comment=”387530″]Even though I actually kinda like the Bears’ orange alternate jerseys, I’m not going to miss them this year (or at all if they’re permanently retired). These are nice. Plus, there’s a lot of orange on them, so it’s a good departure from the everyday look.
Sure, I’d have rather seen an orange throwback or the multi-striped white one, but this will do.
It also seems that most teams’ throwbacks look better than their current unis (Bills, Vikings, Lions, Chargers, Falcons, Patriots…). That’s not the case with this one. It’s a good reminder that older is not always better. Although the Bears “modern” look isn’t exactly a modern look.
A couple gripes. Why does the NFL insist on making teams wear the NOB for throwbacks? And must we see the NFL shield all over the place?
Oh, and gray facemasks aren’t link, are they?
So are the Giants still planning to roll out a throwback look at some point this season?[/quote]
Man, what a great picture. The creasing/texture in those numbers…thank God they’re so damn thick.
[quote comment=”387533″][quote comment=”387532″]
Yes Phil, they did a throwback properly. Has it really reached a point where that’s an achievement worth spending a whole day discussing?[/quote]
you really don’t get UW do you?[/quote]
I just don’t view accuracy as the ONLY thing to judge a throwback uniform by. Is it not possible to separate accuracy and aesthetics? Can a uniform not be judged on multiple levels? Can something be done well but still bad? It’s a good throwback uniform from an accuracy standpoint – but the numbers are still ugly as hell. If they’d used standard block numbers, then I’d join in the group bashing them for using the wrong font, but also point out that the regular block numbers are easier to read and look better despite the inaccuracy.
Of course I also don’t have a stirrup fetish, so you’re probably right about me not getting UW, regardless.
[quote comment=”387532″]
“At least they didn’t screw it up like them damn Packers went and messed up their throwbacks”
[/quote]
I was out of town for the big unveiling so I missed the comments that weekend. Is that the sentiment?
If so, why?
Because the numbers are too big? The league kinda mandated that, right?
Helmet not the right color? It’s not easy to replicate shiny brown leather with plastic, is it?
I did happen to be in Packers country at the time, where I saw that the uni unveiling was link. The Bears throwbacks? I can’t even find a mention of them in the sports section of today’s Trib.
Loved the Bears column, Phil. And aside being a Bears fan, I have to say I really like the throwbacks, they look very clean, simple & straight to the point. Wish the Bears would go back to those thinner pant stripes, it would look a lot better. The navy & orange contrast is extremely sharp.
Ditto on the Vikings & Lions throwbacks.
[quote comment=”387539″][quote comment=”387532″]
“At least they didn’t screw it up like them damn Packers went and messed up their throwbacks”
[/quote]
I was out of town for the big unveiling so I missed the comments that weekend. Is that the sentiment?
If so, why?
Because the numbers are too big? The league kinda mandated that, right?
Helmet not the right color? It’s not easy to replicate shiny brown leather with plastic, is it?
I did happen to be in Packers country at the time, where I saw that the uni unveiling was link. The Bears throwbacks? I can’t even find a mention of them in the sports section of today’s Trib.[/quote]
I knew I shouldn’t have thrown that line in there. No for the most part we agreed that the Packers were about as accurate as they could be, given league rules. There was a little bit of talk about the socks and some discussion on the shade of brown, but nothing really major. I was on a roll and it sounded good.
Okay, serious observation (with no smartass or sarcastic remarks) from 45+ years of sports writing, PR, design, advertising and marketing, much of it sports/entertainment fields (and 55 years of uni-watching)…
Seems to me the NFL and others are trying to be all things to all people. Throwbacks for those who appreciate history. Trendy Matrix alts, Pro Combat and adding black for those who don’t.
And I suppose we could wonder about the wisdom of fracturing/fragmenting the branding, but in a jumpcut music video world that’s what flies. Keep changing, keep re-focusing. Because the ultimate mistake may be consistency/tradition. It’s the new “boring.”
—Ricko
First off – excellent column today. SRO quality. And even a baseball über alles guy like me thinks football when I see that Monsters of the Midway jersey. Good job by the Bears.
Max Patkin! The Clown Prince of Baseball…sure looks & stands like him ;-)
As long as we have Chicago sports historians on board, can I ask a stupid question?
Why didn’t the Bears play at Soldier Field until the 1970s? Why did the Cardinals never play there?
My little bit of research tells me that Soldier Field opened in 1924, the Bears moved in in 1971 (home field Wrigley) and the Cardinals (home field Comiskey) played just 4 home games there in 1959 before moving to St. Louis.
There have been a ton of articles and photos about the cramped conditions, small and temporary stands, pads in the dugouts, etc. at Wrigley. Why did the Bears play there for 47 years while Soldier Field was sitting without a tenant on the waterfront?
[quote comment=”387538″][quote comment=”387533″][quote comment=”387532″]
Yes Phil, they did a throwback properly. Has it really reached a point where that’s an achievement worth spending a whole day discussing?[/quote]
you really don’t get UW do you?[/quote]
I just don’t view accuracy as the ONLY thing to judge a throwback uniform by. Is it not possible to separate accuracy and aesthetics? Can a uniform not be judged on multiple levels? Can something be done well but still bad? It’s a good throwback uniform from an accuracy standpoint – but the numbers are still ugly as hell. If they’d used standard block numbers, then I’d join in the group bashing them for using the wrong font, but also point out that the regular block numbers are easier to read and look better despite the inaccuracy.
Of course I also don’t have a stirrup fetish, so you’re probably right about me not getting UW, regardless.[/quote]
y’know jeff…i didn’t expect you to say something like “nice post today phil…it’s apparent you spent nine hours researching and culling wonderful pictures of past uniforms and not only posting them but giving people like me a history lesson in the process…i really appreciate all that effort, especially so it can be ready at 7:00 am so i can come on the board and say ‘wow…the numbers are too fat…i hate these throwbacks'”
because that’s certainly NOT what UW is about
i know i enjoy sometimes putting the finishing touches on a post like this at 2:30 in the morning (and still forgetting to add the damn tweaks) so you’ll have something to amuse you at 7:00 am, every weekend; obviously, i’ve failed you today
/you’re entitled to your opinion, jeff, and if you don’t like the throwback, that’s fine
“stirrup fetish”…heh…that’s a good one…did you come up with that while you were folding shirts at the gap or did your mom just yell that down to you in the basement?
[quote comment=”387543″]First off – excellent column today. SRO quality. And even a baseball über alles guy like me thinks football when I see that Monsters of the Midway jersey. Good job by the Bears.
Max Patkin! The Clown Prince of Baseball…sure looks & stands like him ;-)[/quote]
Ah-ha. Or is it Al Shack, who preceded Patkin in that role?
re: Today’s post. What are the chances this is the single biggest collection of ’40s Bears color photo anywhere on the web? I’d say pretty good.
—Ricko
If I were in this pic, standing as close to these players as it appears…
link
I know I wouldn’t be able to resist reaching out and fondling the fabric in those gorgeous flannels, to the bewilderment of the ballplayers. I might even get punched out for it.
-Jet
[quote comment=”387544″]As long as we have Chicago sports historians on board, can I ask a stupid question?
Why didn’t the Bears play at Soldier Field until the 1970s? Why did the Cardinals never play there?
My little bit of research tells me that Soldier Field opened in 1924, the Bears moved in in 1971 (home field Wrigley) and the Cardinals (home field Comiskey) played just 4 home games there in 1959 before moving to St. Louis.
There have been a ton of articles and photos about the cramped conditions, small and temporary stands, pads in the dugouts, etc. at Wrigley. Why did the Bears play there for 47 years while Soldier Field was sitting without a tenant on the waterfront?[/quote]
Because there was a long, long period of time when the purist, holier-than-thou colleges wouldn’t allow those people who played football for MONEY–and on SUNDAY, of all things!–to sully any field on which colleges played.
Honest. That’s the reason.
(or is someone gonna argue with me on that, too?)
—Ricko
found two interesting things. 1. nw and illi will play at wrigley field and the old clock on the scoreboard can still time a football game and will be used..nice… 2. the buckeyes spring game unis with sleeves and a hodgepodge of sleeveless stuff as well link me remember the 80’s and mid 90’s when this was common
[quote comment=”387548″][quote comment=”387544″]As long as we have Chicago sports historians on board, can I ask a stupid question?
Why didn’t the Bears play at Soldier Field until the 1970s? Why did the Cardinals never play there?
My little bit of research tells me that Soldier Field opened in 1924, the Bears moved in in 1971 (home field Wrigley) and the Cardinals (home field Comiskey) played just 4 home games there in 1959 before moving to St. Louis.
There have been a ton of articles and photos about the cramped conditions, small and temporary stands, pads in the dugouts, etc. at Wrigley. Why did the Bears play there for 47 years while Soldier Field was sitting without a tenant on the waterfront?[/quote]
Because there was a long, long period of time when the purist, holier-than-thou colleges wouldn’t allow those people who played football for MONEY–and on SUNDAY, of all things!–to sully any field on which colleges played.
Honest. That’s the reason.
(or is someone gonna argue with me on that, too?)
—Ricko[/quote]
Not arguing with you, but which colleges played at Soldier? My little bit of research, I couldn’t figure out who played there until 1971 other than occasional exhibition games, boxing, ski jumping, track meets, etc. Maybe that’s the heart of my question, why did they have a stadium sitting without any primary tenants for so many years?
The Bears throwbacks are awesome. It’s just unfortunate they will be made with modern fabrics.
Of course, anything is better than the current Bears uniforms. They are the definition of a team trying to maintain their history but looking ridiculous because of the modern fabrics. They always look terrible because of the shiny pants (both navy and white). They are almost unwatchable because of the uniforms.
Plus, they need to get rid of the GSH on the shoulder. I understand the impact Halas made on the franchise but the letters on the jersey were old 20 years ago.
*In George Wendt Superfan voice* DaAaAaAaAa Bearsssssss!!
I was expecting only an overview of the Bears throwback unveiling, not an exceptional History lesson…..Fiiiiiine work Phil! Fine work yet again.
I’m one of the few who actually liked the Orange alternate (any word if those are being scrapped this season?) but if it’s being replaced by the throwbacks….I’m behind it 100%. I LOVE the thick numbers! I just wish they went with NNOB but I’m not gonna complain. Can’t wait to see these on the field.
[quote comment=”387550″][quote comment=”387548″][quote comment=”387544″]As long as we have Chicago sports historians on board, can I ask a stupid question?
Why didn’t the Bears play at Soldier Field until the 1970s? Why did the Cardinals never play there?
My little bit of research tells me that Soldier Field opened in 1924, the Bears moved in in 1971 (home field Wrigley) and the Cardinals (home field Comiskey) played just 4 home games there in 1959 before moving to St. Louis.
There have been a ton of articles and photos about the cramped conditions, small and temporary stands, pads in the dugouts, etc. at Wrigley. Why did the Bears play there for 47 years while Soldier Field was sitting without a tenant on the waterfront?[/quote]
Because there was a long, long period of time when the purist, holier-than-thou colleges wouldn’t allow those people who played football for MONEY–and on SUNDAY, of all things!–to sully any field on which colleges played.
Honest. That’s the reason.
(or is someone gonna argue with me on that, too?)
—Ricko[/quote]
Not arguing with you, but which colleges played at Soldier? My little bit of research, I couldn’t figure out who played there until 1971 other than occasional exhibition games, boxing, ski jumping, track meets, etc. Maybe that’s the heart of my question, why did they have a stadium sitting without any primary tenants for so many years?[/quote]
Not saying that feeling lingered until the ’70s, but it was, for decades, the nationwide reason for pros not playing in college venues.
Wasn’t Solider Field used by some colleges and even high schools? I mean, it was a football stadium, why build it if no one played football there? Where’d University of Chicago play? Notre Dame ever play there? (just thinking out loud, honest quesitons, not being combative). Under the old mindset that would have made it hallowed ground and unfit for professionals…a notion that may have lingered.
The exception all those years, of course, was the College All-Star Game, the brainchild of Chicago sportswiter Arch Ward, which WAS played at Soldier Field. And I think the reason it was permitted originally was that many saw it as a chance for college players to show those “pros” they weren’t so hot.
(This is all “overview” based on living through the times and watching what was going on. I will gladly defer to anyone who has more precise and detailed knowledge/info…that hasn’t rewritten history from a perspective 30 to 50 years after the fact, of course, lol).
—Ricko
Tebow’s gonna wear #10 in Denver, I see.
—Ricko
re: soldier field…the interwebs are our friend…this may help explain it:
Soldier Field was built in 1924 as a public, multipurpose sports venue, and was originally named Municipal Grant Park Stadium. Soon thereafter, its name was changed to honor American military personnel that fought in World War I. The building played host to a wide variety of sporting events from its construction until 2001. Those events included the 1927 Dempsey-Tunney boxing match, ski-jump competitions, religious festivals, concerts, world cup soccer, and 41 college football all-star games.
The Chicago Bears began playing their games full-time at Wrigley Field (then known as Cubs Park) in 1921, and continued to play there for 49 years. In 1970, the National Football League ruled that all teams must play in stadiums that seated more than 50,000 fans, and the Bears were forced to find a new home. After losing a bid to move to Northwestern University’s Dyche Stadium, the Bears’ new den became Soldier Field on September 19, 1971.
To Bears’ owner George Halas, Soldier Field was never intended to be a permanent home. 47 years had taken its toll on the structure, and no significant renovations were done for the team before it moved in. Additionally, the stadium was designed for a plethora of different events but was not perfect for professional football.
Though it was not lamented during the era of aging and multipurpose baseball/football stadiums, Soldier Field’s “sightlines” were poor. Because the stadium’s seating areas rose at a low pitch, fans were taken farther away from the action as the seats rose. This configuration also contributed to crowd noise leaving the stadium. These problems would linger throughout the organization’s search for a new home.
During the 1970s, after Halas announced the team would look into building a stadium in suburban Arlington Heights, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley stated the team would need to change their name to the “Arlington Heights Bears,”
Phil and Tim, fantastic job with the Bears writeup. I really dig the new throwbacks.
[quote comment=”387554″]Tebow’s gonna wear #10 in Denver, I see.
—Ricko[/quote]
Nope, he is still wearing 15…the shot of him with the #10 jersey was because he was drafted in the 2010 draft
Excellent Bears history today, Phil.
I agree with JTH @12. Why must the NFL shield be displayed on the collar? It mars the jersey. Like a blemish.
Do we not know that the Bears play in the NFL? Do we need to distinguish the NFL from the other professional football leagues? You know, like….um….er….the, ah….
[quote comment=”387555″]re: soldier field…the interwebs are our friend…this may help explain it:
Soldier Field was built in 1924 as a public, multipurpose sports venue, and was originally named Municipal Grant Park Stadium. Soon thereafter, its name was changed to honor American military personnel that fought in World War I. The building played host to a wide variety of sporting events from its construction until 2001. Those events included the 1927 Dempsey-Tunney boxing match, ski-jump competitions, religious festivals, concerts, world cup soccer, and 41 college football all-star games.
The Chicago Bears began playing their games full-time at Wrigley Field (then known as Cubs Park) in 1921, and continued to play there for 49 years. In 1970, the National Football League ruled that all teams must play in stadiums that seated more than 50,000 fans, and the Bears were forced to find a new home. After losing a bid to move to Northwestern University’s Dyche Stadium, the Bears’ new den became Soldier Field on September 19, 1971.
To Bears’ owner George Halas, Soldier Field was never intended to be a permanent home. 47 years had taken its toll on the structure, and no significant renovations were done for the team before it moved in. Additionally, the stadium was designed for a plethora of different events but was not perfect for professional football.
Though it was not lamented during the era of aging and multipurpose baseball/football stadiums, Soldier Field’s “sightlines” were poor. Because the stadium’s seating areas rose at a low pitch, fans were taken farther away from the action as the seats rose. This configuration also contributed to crowd noise leaving the stadium. These problems would linger throughout the organization’s search for a new home.
During the 1970s, after Halas announced the team would look into building a stadium in suburban Arlington Heights, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley stated the team would need to change their name to the “Arlington Heights Bears,” [/quote]
By all accounts I’ve ever heard, Soldier Field Mark I was a terrible place for football. My dad told me about one of the college all-star games he attended where he was sitting in the north end and said he literally had to turn 90 degrees to even see the field.
Here’s a photo of link after it was renovated to make it more “intimate” building a new north grandstand (north is to the left in the photo).
You can see from where the original bleachers were that without the newer grandstand, there was basically enough room for two full football fields.
[quote comment=”387555″]re: soldier field…the interwebs are our friend…this may help explain it:
Soldier Field was built in 1924 as a public, multipurpose sports venue, and was originally named Municipal Grant Park Stadium. Soon thereafter, its name was changed to honor American military personnel that fought in World War I. The building played host to a wide variety of sporting events from its construction until 2001. Those events included the 1927 Dempsey-Tunney boxing match, ski-jump competitions, religious festivals, concerts, world cup soccer, and 41 college football all-star games.
The Chicago Bears began playing their games full-time at Wrigley Field (then known as Cubs Park) in 1921, and continued to play there for 49 years. In 1970, the National Football League ruled that all teams must play in stadiums that seated more than 50,000 fans, and the Bears were forced to find a new home. After losing a bid to move to Northwestern University’s Dyche Stadium, the Bears’ new den became Soldier Field on September 19, 1971.
To Bears’ owner George Halas, Soldier Field was never intended to be a permanent home. 47 years had taken its toll on the structure, and no significant renovations were done for the team before it moved in. Additionally, the stadium was designed for a plethora of different events but was not perfect for professional football.
Though it was not lamented during the era of aging and multipurpose baseball/football stadiums, Soldier Field’s “sightlines” were poor. Because the stadium’s seating areas rose at a low pitch, fans were taken farther away from the action as the seats rose. This configuration also contributed to crowd noise leaving the stadium. These problems would linger throughout the organization’s search for a new home.
During the 1970s, after Halas announced the team would look into building a stadium in suburban Arlington Heights, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley stated the team would need to change their name to the “Arlington Heights Bears,” [/quote]
Wow, is that somewhat oversimplied. Nowhere in all that are the very real social/legal aspects mentioned, as if they didn’t exist. Namely that a) going way back, the pros WERE looked down upon and b) until somewhat recently playing football “on the Sabbath” was seen, by many, as just unforgivable. Shoot, it’s only been in the last 20 or 30 years that colleges played on Sundays. In any sport.
Does no one here remember when stores…even as recently as after the advent of shopping malls…weren’t allowed to be open, to do business, on Sundays? They were called “Blue Laws.” That’s why a municipally owned stadium wouldn’t have worked for the Bears. A city-owned stadium could scarcely violate its own laws, or principles, to let a pro football team do business on Sunday in a publically owned venue. All the NFL capacity requirements in the world would have meant diddly squat in that era. The city would have said, “Tough.”
And bars? No way. In most the country, before and after Prohibition, bars we closed on Sundays. Selling alcohol was illegal on Sundays.
Hell, as recently as 1982 I was in Vancouver and everything–I mean EVERYTHING–was closed on Sunday. If you needed to buy something on Sunday (say, you forgot to buy flowers for your wife’s birthday) you were pretty much screwed.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387557″][quote comment=”387554″]Tebow’s gonna wear #10 in Denver, I see.
—Ricko[/quote]
Nope, he is still wearing 15…the shot of him with the #10 jersey was because he was drafted in the 2010 draft[/quote]
Ah, makes sense. Marshall must have swiped all the #15s, huh.
Eeeehh I don’t like the Bears’ throwbacks either. Yeah, they’re accurate, but the orange alts are way more enjoyable if you ask me. It was fun seeing the Bears in a different color.
I agree with everything that The Jeff said. There’s too much of a “classic” bias on Uni Watch. There is such a thing as good alts, and they don’t necessarily have to be throwbacks.
Phil, everyone here respects that you put this all together late at night and that it took hard work. Don’t be an asshole to people who disagree with you.
Shoot. link showing the original seating in the north end of Soldier Field.
link
Here is another picture of Sid Luckman in color
WOW for today\’s column and fabulous pictures
[quote comment=”387563″]Shoot. link showing the original seating in the north end of Soldier Field.[/quote]
Great photo – I found a couple similar ones this morning but nothing that showed the original setup before the installation of the north stands so clearly.
Ricko – blue laws makes sense as an explanation, although in Canada at least our blue laws applied equally to private and public facilities.
Love the Bears throwbacks.
Don’t love the Mets jerseys without the blue piping. Hopefully if they do this (since it’s so stupid, they probably will), they’ll at least leave the piping on the greys.
The Mets’ black jerseys with no piping is stupid and unnecessary. Then again, a lot of people think that about the black jerseys themselves.
Squiddie, great work today.
link are gorgeous. I’m surprised you hadn’t commented on them more.
Does anyone know if those patches were worn all season or were they just put on for the international tour?
[quote comment=”387560″]until somewhat recently playing football “on the Sabbath” was seen, by many, as just unforgivable. [/quote]
obviously, that depend’s on exactly whose “sabbath” you’re talking about
[quote comment=”387565″][quote comment=”387563″]Shoot. link showing the original seating in the north end of Soldier Field.[/quote]
Great photo – I found a couple similar ones this morning but nothing that showed the original setup before the installation of the north stands so clearly.
Ricko – blue laws makes sense as an explanation, although in Canada at least our blue laws applied equally to private and public facilities.[/quote]
’tis true. And I wasn’t meaning to say I had a blanket explantion. Just that to ignore such things in a discussion of the history of pro footall on Sundays and in certain venues is to ignore a signficant part of it. Even if it does seem anachronistic and an element someone today can’t relate to.
—Ricko
Updated old joke of the day…
Q: What are: a) a bungee jump and b) a date with Ben Roethlisberger?
A: Two things that end with a jerk on your leg.
(ba dum bum)
—Ricko
The photos from the Japan All-Star tour are great. Aren’t they after the 1951 season? With the 50th anniversary patches and Joe D’s retiring it was 1951. Seems strange that 10 years after December 7, it was a big party. Gives you hope for the rest of the world.
[quote comment=”387569″][quote comment=”387560″]until somewhat recently playing football “on the Sabbath” was seen, by many, as just unforgivable. [/quote]
obviously, that depend’s on exactly whose “sabbath” you’re talking about[/quote]
I think it would be safe to go with the Sabbath of those who who would speak such a thing and who drafted the Blue Laws. Because, y’know, like it or not, in any society there’s a dominant culture…social, historic, religious.
Translation: Advise your girlfriend to maybe not wear her shortshorts walking around in Tehran.
Hey, cultures are what they are. It’s a human thing.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387568″]Squiddie, great work today.
link are gorgeous. I’m surprised you hadn’t commented on them more.
Does anyone know if those patches were worn all season or were they just put on for the international tour?[/quote]
btw, yes, that is Ferris Fain with Eddie Lopat.
A few thoughts:
-Â I’m not in love with these Bears throwbacks. Nice enough? Sure. Life-altering? Nah. At least not for me. I prefer the era in which the numerals were white-outlined.
-Â That said, I love all the cool old photos in today’s entry. Great stuff.
– You know what I don’t love? The Ricko and Jeff Show. Nobody else loves it either. Guys, you both have plenty of valid points, most of which are usually overshadowed by the sarcasm, the baiting, and the bullshit. Please get a grip. Now. Thanks.
Couple more versions of BDCB:
Bryan Griffin of the Lyric Opera sings link
link for those of you who want a punkier version.
link pauses while drawing up a play to consider the majesty of the T-formation and how it’s impressed the nation.
[quote comment=”387568″]Squiddie, great work today.
link are gorgeous. I’m surprised you hadn’t commented on them more.
Does anyone know if those patches were worn all season or were they just put on for the international tour?[/quote]
The whole season, I think. Here’s one on link.
[quote comment=”387577″][quote comment=”387568″]Squiddie, great work today.
link are gorgeous. I’m surprised you hadn’t commented on them more.
Does anyone know if those patches were worn all season or were they just put on for the international tour?[/quote]
The whole season, I think. Here’s one on link.[/quote]
Oh, cool. Not to be a pain in the ass, but do you think there are any full-color shots bouncing around?
link
link
link
3 color screen grabs of old Bears
[quote comment=”387578″][quote comment=”387577″][quote comment=”387568″]Squiddie, great work today.
link are gorgeous. I’m surprised you hadn’t commented on them more.
Does anyone know if those patches were worn all season or were they just put on for the international tour?[/quote]
The whole season, I think. Here’s one on link.[/quote]
Oh, cool. Not to be a pain in the ass, but do you think there are any full-color shots bouncing around?[/quote]
here
and here
all i did was google mickey mantle 1951…figured that might yield some results
[quote comment=”387578″][quote comment=”387577″][quote comment=”387568″]Squiddie, great work today.
link are gorgeous. I’m surprised you hadn’t commented on them more.
Does anyone know if those patches were worn all season or were they just put on for the international tour?[/quote]
The whole season, I think. Here’s one on link.[/quote]
Oh, cool. Not to be a pain in the ass, but do you think there are any full-color shots bouncing around?[/quote]
Not in the Life archives, but the best photo I’ve seen was on link.
It’s strange that Chicago can have such long sleeves to show the stripes from that era yet other teams insist they have to have sleeveless jerseys these days- for whatever reason.
Football figurines that I saved pictures of
Decatur Staleys
link
Bears 1946
link
Bears 1936
link
Bears 1925
link
Bears 1932 in white
link
Bears 1943 in white
link
Bears 1959
link
[quote comment=”387565″][quote comment=”387563″]Shoot. link showing the original seating in the north end of Soldier Field.[/quote]
Great photo – I found a couple similar ones this morning but nothing that showed the original setup before the installation of the north stands so clearly.
Ricko – blue laws makes sense as an explanation, although in Canada at least our blue laws applied equally to private and public facilities.[/quote]
Ah, here’s a link.
The angle’s pretty screwy (rotating the image 90 degrees doesn’t really even help), but you can see just how far from the action those seats were on the north end. Hell, even if your seats were in the south end, your view left a lot to be desired.
Maybe Squiddie can find something better in the Life archives. My search yielded gems like link.
I remember being fascinated by those disused wooden bleachers when I was a kid. Nobody ever bothered to remove them. They were just left there to rot.
[quote comment=”387583″]Bears 1943 in white
link
[/quote]
according to timmy b…they didn’t wear white in 1943 (or even 41-58)…
so that figureine is wrong
[quote comment=”387585″][quote comment=”387583″]Bears 1943 in white
link
[/quote]
according to timmy b…they didn’t wear white in 1943 (or even 41-58)…
so that figureine is wrong[/quote]
[quote comment=”387585″][quote comment=”387583″]Bears 1943 in white
link
[/quote]
according to timmy b…they didn’t wear white in 1943 (or even 41-58)…
so that figureine is wrong[/quote]
I was thinking Timmy B knows which ones were wrong or not. I was wondering about the white.
This…
link
…is the Red Grange Bears. I’d bet good money those helmets were brown leather.
Not critcizing the artist, just want to nip any misconceptions regarding when the Bears went to navy helmets.
I could be wrong, that’s for sure.
Got anything on it, TimmyB?
—Ricko
Is it time to bring out the photos of ski jumping at Soldier Field again?
link.
link.
Jumping is easy. link.
And, speaking of crampled playing facilities, the Bears, of course, also were the first to play indoors.
link
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387587″]This…
link
…is the Red Grange Bears. I’d bet good money those helmets were brown leather.
Not critcizing the artist, just want to nip any misconceptions regarding when the Bears went to navy helmets.
I could be wrong, that’s for sure.
Got anything on it, TimmyB?
—Ricko[/quote]
Yep most likely brown helmets. Which makes me wonder what pro or college team first used a different color helmet? Besides brown or black.
[quote comment=”387581″][quote comment=”387578″][quote comment=”387577″][quote comment=”387568″]Squiddie, great work today.
link are gorgeous. I’m surprised you hadn’t commented on them more.
Does anyone know if those patches were worn all season or were they just put on for the international tour?[/quote]
The whole season, I think. Here’s one on link.[/quote]
Oh, cool. Not to be a pain in the ass, but do you think there are any full-color shots bouncing around?[/quote]
Not in the Life archives, but the best photo I’ve seen was on link.[/quote]
Wantwantwantwantwantwantwantwant.
That’s one hot piece of patch.
[quote comment=”387590″][quote comment=”387587″]This…
link
…is the Red Grange Bears. I’d bet good money those helmets were brown leather.
Not critcizing the artist, just want to nip any misconceptions regarding when the Bears went to navy helmets.
I could be wrong, that’s for sure.
Got anything on it, TimmyB?
—Ricko[/quote]
Yep most likely brown helmets. Which makes me wonder what pro or college team first used a different color helmet? Besides brown or black.[/quote]
Seems white likely was first variation. When did Cardinals go to white? Or was it maybe a college team that was first?
Seem to recall long ago seeing a photo of Albie Booth (Yale, 1929-31) dropkicking in a game with his team in a white helmet…and wondering if they weren’t among the first with white lids.
—Ricko
Don’t know who has what on their computers or TV systems, but the Royals are wearing the powder blue hats and jerseys against the Twins. Not exactly a bright sunny day in KC, though.
not sure who or when the first leather helmets were actually painted, but it definitely had to do with the forward pass coming into vogue…helped qb’s more easily identify their players downfield
found a nice helmet history article which isn’t particularly indepth, but has some great pics
Is this Zambrano in stirrups? Check the video from last night.
link
[quote comment=”387595″]Is this Zambrano in stirrups? Check the video from last night.
link
It looks like he was wearing these: link
[quote comment=”387565″][quote comment=”387563″]Shoot. link showing the original seating in the north end of Soldier Field.[/quote]
Great photo – I found a couple similar ones this morning but nothing that showed the original setup before the installation of the north stands so clearly.[/quote]
Gawd, that’s cool. It’s always interesting to see photos of the facilities that these teams play in, and despite their inadequacies people still show up to watch athletes perform. link, Soldier v1.0, link link, etc. Goes to show that it’s still the sport that people go to see.
Nice work today Phil – beauty to see the Bears not wetting the bed on the jersey. Now if only the Vikes would reconsider the link link
[quote comment=”387528″][quote comment=”387527″][quote comment=”387525″][quote comment=”387524″][quote comment=”387523″]Here we go again.
So if a friend dresses as Sonny Bono for Halloween—long sleeve teeshirt under a fur vest, with striped bellbottoms, beads and a headband—and I say, “Man, that’s outfit sucks”…how would that be even remotely relevant? Or insightful?
It’s what ol’ Sonny wore back then.
That’s the point.
If I say, “Man, they had a strange sense of fashion in those days, didn’t they.” That’s at least a valid observation.
Or, in the case of the Bears’ throwback, “That font is really thick, isn’t it. But, then again, they were concerned only with what people could see from the stands. TV wasn’t involved.”
Applying the 2010 filter to everything shows an inability to get outside ourselves or to reason that times might have been different, and what those differences might have been.
If we can’t do that, then I suppose, we could write a letter to George Halas with our suggestions (starting with “your fat front font sucks”) and back date it 70 years.
—Ricko[/quote]
Oh shut up Ricko. What do you want me to say? It’s accurate. Great. Wonderful job, Chicago! They get an A+ and a banana sticker.
The numbers are still thick and ugly and I don’t like it. Or to tie into your Sonny Bono thing… “Great costume dude, but why did want to dress like a dead guy? Watch out for that tree…”[/quote]
Only the view from 2010 matters.
It’s the touchstone for everything.
The one true standard.
All things are to be viewed from that vantage point.
If it doesn’t work for today, it’s wrong.
Got it.
—Ricko[/quote]
Maybe if throwbacks weren’t getting tossed around with reckless abandon, I might care a little more about the historical viewpoint. However, it seems as though wearing a throwback uniform is quickly becoming as trendy as adding a black alternate jersey.[/quote]
Oh, man, you got that right. What used to charming and intriguing is being reduced to “just another gimmick” because of all the other crap thrown into the mix. Alts, black jerseys for Halloween, Nike’s Combat bullshit, 12,000 different Oregon combinations, most of them butt-ugly and virtually irrelevant to school colors, Nike’s other “sports costumes”…
btw, The Jeff…something that had nothing to do with you set me off this morning. And while I didn’t see eye-to-eye to with you, I most certainly was, well…overly venomous.
Sorry.
(although the George Washington costume analogy was pretty good, lol)
—Ricko[/quote]
Actually, Ricko, I didn’t get that feeling from you, but I did get that from The Jeff, who seems to act like a 12-year-old most times. Courtesy and respect are classic throwback concepts that are hardly used today by some, it seems.
[quote comment=”387597″][quote comment=”387565″][quote comment=”387563″]Shoot. link showing the original seating in the north end of Soldier Field.[/quote]
Great photo – I found a couple similar ones this morning but nothing that showed the original setup before the installation of the north stands so clearly.[/quote]
Gawd, that’s cool. It’s always interesting to see photos of the facilities that these teams play in, and despite their inadequacies people still show up to watch athletes perform. link, Soldier v1.0, link link, etc. Goes to show that it’s still the sport that people go to see.
Nice work today Phil – beauty to see the Bears not wetting the bed on the jersey. Now if only the Vikes would reconsider the link link[/quote]
I’m a fan of these unis. Love those stripes.
link.jpg
By the way, someone asked the other day about security details at big games. I distinctly remember seeing police dogs on the field when the Phillies won Game 6 of the World Series in 1980.
[quote comment=”387599″][quote comment=”387597″][quote comment=”387565″][quote comment=”387563″]Shoot. link showing the original seating in the north end of Soldier Field.[/quote]
Great photo – I found a couple similar ones this morning but nothing that showed the original setup before the installation of the north stands so clearly.[/quote]
Gawd, that’s cool. It’s always interesting to see photos of the facilities that these teams play in, and despite their inadequacies people still show up to watch athletes perform. link, Soldier v1.0, link link, etc. Goes to show that it’s still the sport that people go to see.
Nice work today Phil – beauty to see the Bears not wetting the bed on the jersey. Now if only the Vikes would reconsider the link link[/quote]
I’m a fan of these unis. Love those stripes.
link.jpg[/quote]
Whoops. Try again.
link.jpg
[quote comment=”387601″][quote comment=”387599″][quote comment=”387597″][quote comment=”387565″][quote comment=”387563″]Shoot. link showing the original seating in the north end of Soldier Field.[/quote]
Great photo – I found a couple similar ones this morning but nothing that showed the original setup before the installation of the north stands so clearly.[/quote]
Gawd, that’s cool. It’s always interesting to see photos of the facilities that these teams play in, and despite their inadequacies people still show up to watch athletes perform. link, Soldier v1.0, link link, etc. Goes to show that it’s still the sport that people go to see.
Nice work today Phil – beauty to see the Bears not wetting the bed on the jersey. Now if only the Vikes would reconsider the link link[/quote]
I’m a fan of these unis. Love those stripes.
link.jpg[/quote]
Whoops. Try again.
link.jpg[/quote]
One more time.
link
[quote comment=”387570″][quote comment=”387565″][quote comment=”387563″]Shoot. link showing the original seating in the north end of Soldier Field.[/quote]
Great photo – I found a couple similar ones this morning but nothing that showed the original setup before the installation of the north stands so clearly.
Ricko – blue laws makes sense as an explanation, although in Canada at least our blue laws applied equally to private and public facilities.[/quote]
’tis true. And I wasn’t meaning to say I had a blanket explantion. Just that to ignore such things in a discussion of the history of pro footall on Sundays and in certain venues is to ignore a signficant part of it. Even if it does seem anachronistic and an element someone today can’t relate to.
—Ricko[/quote]
I guess I’m old – I remember one of the many issues the future Indianapolis Colts had with the city of Baltimore was that they couldn’t start their games until 2pm Eastern (as opposed to 1pm Eastern – for the rest of the NFL’s “early” games) due to the city’s “Blue Laws”…
Phil, enjoyed your BFBS posts. I noticed in yesterday’s photo at the top that Kentucky had a black uniform. Never saw that one before.
I love black. Wear black sweaters, shirts, and running attire all the time. But the Cardinals in black is simply not right. Call it an official color or not, it doesn’t mean you wear a black jersey when your name is the Cardinals. Of course, the Reds sported black for a few years too. Black has its place in both uniforms as a trim color, but it’s weird to see the Cardinals, with a great color for a jersey (even if executed poorly with the modern look), go BFBS.
That said, for some reason I like black in certain places (Eagles’ alternate jersey, yes; Duke’s alternate road uniforms in basketball, yes), though not others (Notre Dame hoops; Florida State hoops and football; Miami hoops and you have to know football is coming; and UCLA in the 1990s — all most certainly not).
re: GUESS THE SCOREBOARD.
Can’t give the date, but I’ll bet the first batter was OF Gino Cimoli of the Dodgers.
That’s cuz he was the first batter in the first regular season MLB game ever on the West Coast: Dodgers and Giants in Seals Stadium, 1958.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387606″]re: GUESS THE SCOREBOARD.
Can’t give the date, but I’ll bet the first batter was OF Gino Cimoli of the Dodgers.
That’s cuz he was the first batter in the first regular season MLB game ever on the West Coast: Dodgers and Giants in Seals Stadium, 1958.
—Ricko[/quote]
Here you go:
link
[quote comment=”387608″][quote comment=”387606″]re: GUESS THE SCOREBOARD.
Can’t give the date, but I’ll bet the first batter was OF Gino Cimoli of the Dodgers.
That’s cuz he was the first batter in the first regular season MLB game ever on the West Coast: Dodgers and Giants in Seals Stadium, 1958.
—Ricko[/quote]
Here you go:
link
Whoops–just looked more closely. This would have been from the THIRD game of the series, not the FIRST. See: link
First off, I love the Bears throwbacks. It’s even more special to see the Sid Luckman pix throughout, as he was family. My father used to shag footballs for him at Erasmus Hall HS in Brooklyn, back in the mid-late 1930s, during Luckman’s HS and Columbia years. (My father played varsity shortly after.) The LIFE magazine cover of Luckman from October 24, 1938 carrying the headline, “Best Passer” is a favorite heirloom.
The field at Erasmus Hall was named for him in the fall of 1994, and the full-page article about the ceremony ran in the NY Times on December 2, 1994, the day after my father died. He absolutely would have loved to have seen that honor.
Thanks for publishing so many pictures of the 1940s Bears, my dad’s favorite team, and of his cousin, Hall of Famer Sid Luckman. That really made my day.
—Jon B.
[quote comment=”387610″]First off, I love the Bears throwbacks. It’s even more special to see the Sid Luckman pix throughout, as he was family. My father used to shag footballs for him at Erasmus Hall HS in Brooklyn, back in the mid-late 1930s, during Luckman’s HS and Columbia years. (My father played varsity shortly after.) The LIFE magazine cover of Luckman from October 24, 1938 carrying the headline, “Best Passer” is a favorite heirloom.
The field at Erasmus Hall was named for him in the fall of 1994, and the full-page article about the ceremony ran in the NY Times on December 2, 1994, the day after my father died. He absolutely would have loved to have seen that honor.
Thanks for publishing so many pictures of the 1940s Bears, my dad’s favorite team, and of his cousin, Hall of Famer Sid Luckman. That really made my day.
—Jon B.[/quote]
Great to hear that Jon, about your background.
[quote comment=”387592″][quote comment=”387590″][quote comment=”387587″]This…
link
…is the Red Grange Bears. I’d bet good money those helmets were brown leather.
Not critcizing the artist, just want to nip any misconceptions regarding when the Bears went to navy helmets.
I could be wrong, that’s for sure.
Got anything on it, TimmyB?
—Ricko[/quote]
Yep most likely brown helmets. Which makes me wonder what pro or college team first used a different color helmet? Besides brown or black.[/quote]
Seems white likely was first variation. When did Cardinals go to white? Or was it maybe a college team that was first?
Seem to recall long ago seeing a photo of Albie Booth (Yale, 1929-31) dropkicking in a game with his team in a white helmet…and wondering if they weren’t among the first with white lids.
—Ricko[/quote]
I do imagine white would have been the first different color.
[quote comment=”387611″][quote comment=”387610″]First off, I love the Bears throwbacks. It’s even more special to see the Sid Luckman pix throughout, as he was family. My father used to shag footballs for him at Erasmus Hall HS in Brooklyn, back in the mid-late 1930s, during Luckman’s HS and Columbia years. (My father played varsity shortly after.) The LIFE magazine cover of Luckman from October 24, 1938 carrying the headline, “Best Passer” is a favorite heirloom.
The field at Erasmus Hall was named for him in the fall of 1994, and the full-page article about the ceremony ran in the NY Times on December 2, 1994, the day after my father died. He absolutely would have loved to have seen that honor.
Thanks for publishing so many pictures of the 1940s Bears, my dad’s favorite team, and of his cousin, Hall of Famer Sid Luckman. That really made my day.
—Jon B.[/quote]
Great to hear that Jon, about your background.[/quote]
In theory, that’s a good deal of what these throwbacks are supposed to be about: Generating an interest in NFL history and re-kindling memories.
And, through the work of folks like Phil, TimmyB and others, UW may do a better job on some of that (much of that?) than the NFL does.
Nice job, guys.
—Ricko
link
Yale
[quote comment=”387614″]http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/VV8908.html
Yale[/quote]
Which begs the question, “Were Harvard’s helmets crimson that day?”
They look pretty dark. Could be black, of course, but still…
It never ends with us uni geeks, does it. ;)
—Ricko
Know what would be cool?
First play on offense in those throwbacks, Bears run a play out of this …
link
[quote comment=”387616″]Know what would be cool?
First play on offense in those throwbacks, Bears run a play out of this …
link
Run play-action and hit one of the tight ends for about 40 yards.
The angle’s pretty screwy (rotating the image 90 degrees doesn’t really even help), but you can see just how far from the action those seats were on the north end. Hell, even if your seats were in the south end, your view left a lot to be desired.
By the ’90s, hadn’t they put in a north stand much closer to the field? I sat in those seats and felt close to the game. (As JTH said, all the sections sitting unused beyond that north stand seemed weird.)
re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387576″]Couple more versions of BDCB:
Bryan Griffin of the Lyric Opera sings link
link for those of you who want a punkier version.[/quote]
That second version brings to mind another song with ties to Chicago sports. How does it go again?
link
Nice unis in this one…
And lots of nice photos in today’s post. I’m not a fan of the number font, but they are what they are. Thanks.
Giants wore Earth Day patches today for some reason- and Cain went high socks but no stripes. Photos sent to The Boss.
PS- Bears unis are c o o l, man.
[quote comment=”387597]Nice work today Phil – beauty to see the Bears not wetting the bed on the jersey. Now if only the Vikes would reconsider the link link[/quote]
The older Vikings photo just looks like those guys are there going to work. No flash, no sack dances, no superfluous jersey litter, just there to rip your head off. Great stuff. On the Foreman/Tark pic I like the sans yellow number outline better than with it. Always liked how Joey Browner’s number always looked huge on his back. Either it was huge or it just looked that way without the yellow outline. Now let’s see if I screwed up the quote jive above. Here goes…
yep. messed it up. that was from quote #79 – Carl.
Those 48 Bears are my fave.
I had never seen the orange blocks with white trim.
Neat.
this bears uniform is right in my aesthetic wheelhouse. nice to see a jersey that does not need white ditch the white, it’s near perfect, i love blue and orange together. while perhaps a touch blocky, and not as nice as the early 40’s, i like the serif numbers more then the rounded ones too. not that i have a problem with the bears current look, but i say slap the wishbone on the helmet and trot em out every seven days in that jersey.
[quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
fixed
[quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
fixed[/quote]
Change the facemask to gray and we have a winner!
[quote comment=”387615″][quote comment=”387614″]http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/VV8908.html
Yale[/quote]
Which begs the question, “Were Harvard’s helmets crimson that day?”
They look pretty dark. Could be black, of course, but still…
It never ends with us uni geeks, does it. ;)
—Ricko[/quote]
Ooh. Dig that center line marker rather than a 50.
[quote comment=”387628″][quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
link[/quote]
Change the facemask to gray and we have a winner![/quote]
I’d agree, but for those who like to point out there were no facemasks back in the 40s, how about a clear plastic one?
[quote comment=”387618″]The angle’s pretty screwy (rotating the image 90 degrees doesn’t really even help), but you can see just how far from the action those seats were on the north end. Hell, even if your seats were in the south end, your view left a lot to be desired.
By the ’90s, hadn’t they put in a north stand much closer to the field? I sat in those seats and felt close to the game. (As JTH said, all the sections sitting unused beyond that north stand seemed weird.)[/quote]
I don’t remember a 90s renovation. It’s possible, though. But those empty bleachers were downright eerie. If you ignored the cars parked below, that area had a real ghost town feel.
Here’s a terrific shot showing the ORIGINAL configuration before there was any north grandstand. link.
I found it in link. TONS of great stuff in there. Unfortunately, none of it’s captioned (or at least no captions in the stuff I looked at).
Some of these pics seem really familiar (perhaps they’ve been posted here before).
[quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
link[/quote]
Sorry, need white shoe laces.
sorry, link: link
Memo to Rays: The Royals “own” that powder blue look. Unfortunately, the hat doesn’t work. link
Rays’ powder: link
[quote comment=”387634″]Memo to Rays: The Royals “own” that powder blue look. Unfortunately, the hat doesn’t work. link
[quote comment=”387635″]Rays’ powder: link
I think both could be better as road jerseys. I like the light blue jerseys a lot better than the dark ones for the Rays, mainly because people around here love the alternates and will buy them more than the standard white or gray, and at least the light blue looks more like a baseball jersey (albeit an away jersey) than a softball top.
The Royals wearing theirs at home is just stupid, and the same goes for the Blue Jays. It’s cool that they’re bringing back some nice uniforms after their experiments with black (although the Jays are still working with that), but anyone who was more than 12 years old when they wore the powder blues originally know that they’re away jerseys, and it just doesn’t look right at home.
[quote comment=”387634″]Memo to Rays: The Royals “own” that powder blue look. Unfortunately, the hat doesn’t work. link
actually, until the royals go full-on powders, they don’t own
shitanything…it’s just a softball topthe blue jays, however, do own it
[quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
link[/quote]
I’m going to assume that’s in reference to Hester often going double-socked and not the notion that if three stripes on the sleeves are good then six on the socks would be/look even better. Because that would be just silly; neither sound uni design nor an accurate throwback. Remember, in design as in acting, restraint is an admirable quality.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387638″]I’m going to assume that’s in reference to Hester often going double-socked[/quote]
you know what happens when you assume…
[quote comment=”387637″][quote comment=”387634″]Memo to Rays: The Royals “own” that powder blue look. Unfortunately, the hat doesn’t work. link
actually, until the royals go full-on powders, they don’t own
shitanything…it’s just a softball topthe link, however, do own it[/quote]
[quote comment=”387637″][quote comment=”387634″]Memo to Rays: The Royals “own” that powder blue look. Unfortunately, the hat doesn’t work. link
actually, until the royals go full-on powders, they don’t own
shitanything…it’s just a softball topthe link, however, do own it[/quote]
Although the fact that they’re somehow missed that it belongs in their luggage and not hanging in their home locker room does mitigate it some.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387637″][quote comment=”387634″]Memo to Rays: The Royals “own” that powder blue look. Unfortunately, the hat doesn’t work. link
actually, until the royals go full-on powders, they don’t own
shitanything…it’s just a softball topthe link, however, do own it[/quote]
i know the powder thing is tired, but i love that bluejays look.
[quote comment=”387639″][quote comment=”387638″]I’m going to assume that’s in reference to Hester often going double-socked[/quote]
you know what happens link…[/quote]
Yeah, every once in a while you’re right.
[quote comment=”387632″][quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
link[/quote]
Sorry, need white shoe laces.[/quote]
Thought about adding white laces when I was doing it.
Here you go then…white laces, white crew socks and gray facemask.
link
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387643″][quote comment=”387632″][quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
link[/quote]
Sorry, need white shoe laces.[/quote]
Thought about adding white laces when I was doing it.
Here you go then…white laces, white crew socks and gray facemask.
link
—Ricko[/quote]
now…just bring the pants down to the level of that stupid rubber band, and black out the “mark of the beast” and we’re good
[quote comment=”387644″][quote comment=”387643″][quote comment=”387632″][quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
link[/quote]
Sorry, need white shoe laces.[/quote]
Thought about adding white laces when I was doing it.
Here you go then…white laces, white crew socks and gray facemask.
link
—Ricko[/quote]
now…just bring the pants down to the level of that stupid rubber band, and black out the “mark of the beast” and we’re good[/quote]
…while standing on your head drinking a lime rickey.
[quote comment=”387644″][quote comment=”387643″][quote comment=”387632″][quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
link[/quote]
Sorry, need white shoe laces.[/quote]
Thought about adding white laces when I was doing it.
Here you go then…white laces, white crew socks and gray facemask.
link
—Ricko[/quote]
now…just bring the pants down to the level of that stupid rubber band, and black out the “mark of the beast” and we’re good[/quote]
Nah, I was trying to get handle on how they’ll look on the field. For real. Not necesarily fixing all the NFL uni ills…because that isn’t how we’ll see them. The white laces and crew socks are enough of a stretch.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387643″][quote comment=”387632″][quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
—Ricko[/quote]
link[/quote]
Sorry, need white shoe laces.[/quote]
Thought about adding white laces when I was doing it.
Here you go then…white laces, white crew socks and gray facemask.
link
—Ricko[/quote]
Now can you wave your magic wand and do something about the bicycle pants?
Apollojies for repetitivenesses. My scanning of comments gets a little iffy after 10:00 pm on a Sunday. It is Sunday isn’t it? At least where I live? Blahhhhhhhh. I’m done.
if it’s midnight in chicago…
then it’s time for this
/ ¡feliz cumpleaños! roberto
[quote comment=”387649″]if it’s midnight in chicago…
link
/ ¡feliz cumpleaños! roberto[/quote]
holy crap! thanks phil, i needed the laugh.
[quote comment=”387650″][quote comment=”387649″]if it’s midnight in chicago…
link
/ ¡feliz cumpleaños! roberto[/quote]
holy crap! thanks phil, i needed the laugh.[/quote]
He’s a man! He’s forty!
Happy birthday indeed, Mr Marshall.
Now, a math question: If Mr Marshall has one candle on his pineapple upside-down birthday cake for every five years of age, how many candles does Mr Marshall have? ;-)
[quote comment=”387651″][quote comment=”387650″][quote comment=”387649″]if it’s midnight in chicago…
link
/ ¡feliz cumpleaños! roberto[/quote]
holy crap! thanks phil, i needed the laugh.[/quote]
He’s a man! He’s forty!
Happy birthday indeed, Mr Marshall.
Now, a math question: If Mr Marshall has one candle on his pineapple upside-down birthday cake for every five years of age, how many candles does Mr Marshall have? ;-)[/quote]
even in reducing them by 5x, it is too many. nice on the cake reference:)
[quote comment=”387649″]if it’s midnight in chicago…
link
/ ¡feliz cumpleaños! roberto[/quote]
speaking of pineapple up-side-down cake, I find PACZKI stirrups much tastier. Happy birthday baby.
Takin’ that job and shovin’ it for forty years and counting…
[quote comment=”387654″]Takin’ that job and shovin’ it for forty years and counting…[/quote]
what is this world coming to, pineapple on the watch?! what a world, what a world. link link, but you don’t want to be a regular poster, it gets link for sure.
[quote comment=”387644″][quote comment=”387643″][quote comment=”387632″][quote comment=”387627″][quote comment=”387619″]re: BEARS THROWBACKS
Not gonna pretend this is anything other than extremely crude (the numbers were a bitch), but I just felt like noodling a little…
link
Ketchup is a horrible condiment, and I enjoy the Bears throw-back jerseys, although I have no justification for liking them, I just do.
—Ricko[/quote]
link[/quote]
Sorry, need white shoe laces.[/quote]
Thought about adding white laces when I was doing it.
Here you go then…white laces, white crew socks and gray facemask.
link
—Ricko[/quote]
now…just bring the pants down to the level of that stupid rubber band, and black out the “mark of the beast” and we’re good[/quote]
dork said:
“Ketchup is a horrible condiment, and I enjoy the Bears throw-back jerseys, although I have no justification for liking them, I just do.”
first of all, it’s catsup! second of all…yOU caLl THaT a ReASon fOR LikiNG a jErseY?!?! none reason? this is so disconcerting. this site’s comments are going down hill.
First of all, I need no validation in my opinions, second how dare you reprimand me during my uni-watch post debut? Who cares how I spell K-E-T-C-H-U-P, as far as I’m concerned it should be spelled E-A-T-A-S-A-U-S-A-G-E.
[quote comment=”387658″]First of all, I need no validation in my opinions, second how dare you reprimand me during my uni-watch post debut? Who cares how I spell K-E-T-C-H-U-P, as far as I’m concerned it should be spelled E-A-T-A-S-A-U-S-A-G-E.[/quote]
that’s my pineapple for you. don’t make me give you the roofus~goofus hawaiian punch style, this is the big time for uniform watchimafication, and we have strict standards, i don’t care if you do know stirrup origin theory. as far as CATSUP goes, what’s your damage outside link? for the corn mother’s sake, what of french fries?!!!! daft daft daft
[quote comment=”387659″][quote comment=”387658″]First of all, I need no validation in my opinions, second how dare you reprimand me during my uni-watch post debut? Who cares how I spell K-E-T-C-H-U-P, as far as I’m concerned it should be spelled E-A-T-A-S-A-U-S-A-G-E.[/quote]
that’s my pineapple for you. don’t make me give you the roofus~goofus hawaiian punch style, this is the big time for uniform watchimafication, and we have strict standards, i don’t care if you do know stirrup origin theory. as far as CATSUP goes, what’s your damage outside link? for the corn mother’s sake, what of french fries?!!!! daft daft daft[/quote]
Happy birthday, RPM.
It’s neither catsup nor ketchup. It’s tomato-flavored french-fry lubricant.
[quote comment=”387661″]Happy birthday, RPM.
It’s neither catsup nor ketchup. It’s tomato-flavored french-fry lubricant.[/quote]
Also, as an aside: You’re now to the point in life that getting up early, eating liver and onions and playing shuffleboard are socially acceptable, given your age bracket.
(Whatever you do, however, leave the facial hair intact/zany.)
[quote comment=”387662″][quote comment=”387661″]Happy birthday, RPM.
It’s neither catsup nor ketchup. It’s tomato-flavored french-fry lubricant.[/quote]
Also, as an aside: You’re now to the point in life that getting up early, eating liver and onions and playing shuffleboard are socially acceptable, given your age bracket.
(Whatever you do, however, leave the facial hair intact/zany.)[/quote]
thanks man. as for the ‘stache i trimmed it, as i did the nice pig tails that followed.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when you are preoccupied with athletics/aesthetics, your gut gets muddles in the bull. For the record Pineapple came from a groggy man down by the river half asleep (purple); the exclamation was purely a manifestation of his subconscious. Go damn it my justification lies in PURe aesthetics, and as the lady friend of the stirrup king, my passionate observations should be waved, yea that’s right, I’m pulling rank.
By the way, rpm, as a birthday present, I’m sending you a letter.
You’ll appreciate it (if you can wade through my craptastic handwriting).
And Pineapple, why purple? I don’t harbor Paul’s irrational hatred for the color, but I am no apologist either. I believe it doesn’t work for athletic uniforms. (Not for the world at large, however. There are plenty of nice things in purple.)
[quote comment=\”387665\”]By the way, rpm, as a birthday present, I\’m sending you a letter.
You\’ll appreciate it (if you can wade through my craptastic handwriting).
And Pineapple, why purple? I don\’t harbor Paul\’s irrational hatred for the color, but I am no apologist either. I believe it doesn\’t work for athletic uniforms. (Not for the world at large, however. There are plenty of nice things in purple.)[/quote]
purple sucks in general, i agree with fearless leader on that, but what of washington? they rocks the house.
[quote comment=”387664″]Ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when you are preoccupied with athletics/aesthetics, your gut gets muddles in the bull. For the record Pineapple came from a groggy man down by the river half asleep (purple); the exclamation was purely a manifestation of his subconscious. Go damn it my justification lies in PURe aesthetics, and as the lady friend of the stirrup king, my passionate observations should be waved, yea that’s right, I’m pulling rank.[/quote]
yeah yeah yeah, i talk in my half sleep, you trying to get me banned?!!!!?:
I’m gonna get all art fag on you, but purchasing purple in oil paint is one of the most expensive tubes you can buy. I know purple looks stupid in uniform, it is comparable to the tribal tattoo epidemic in the early nineties, however, it is not right to associate stupid uniform purple with PACZKI purple which is symbolic of not only the plum in the pastry but the last gasp of sin before committing to spiritual sacrifice. Must the uniwatchers chastise my baby because he sees layers in the aesthetics of athletics?
UW is… UGH! Ew! How dare you…
The Muskies are trash, uniforms and all. Plus, those are the d-bags that started the wave. THEY STARTED THE WAVE! HOLD THAT AGAINST THEM!
Pineapple, as a man who consumes far too much sugar for his own good, I’m not about to criticize sugary pastry goodness (especially when fruitiness is involved). Like I said, there’s plenty to be liked about purple off the field. Just keep it off the damn field/court/ice.
Well, my horrible week has officially started as of an hour and 20 minutes ago, so I need to go to bed. Robert, enjoy your birthday. Pineapple, it’s been a pleasure.
What I learned from Uni Watch today: The Bears’ throwbacks are laughably ugly. They’re far uglier than the Cardinals’ black jerseys. But they’re historically accurate, so apparently it doesn’t matter.
Scoreboard:
link
Thanks for posting these Phil. I’ll try to send some from Japan that can be traced down using English.
p.s. The Huskies unis are classic, although I don’t like the current white pants. Purple works in football if the striping and piping are understated. As far as the wave goes, blame Robb Weller. You can’t hold 40,000 drunk college students responsible for their actions.
[quote comment=”387611″][quote comment=”387610″]First off, I love the Bears throwbacks. It’s even more special to see the Sid Luckman pix throughout, as he was family. My father used to shag footballs for him at Erasmus Hall HS in Brooklyn, back in the mid-late 1930s, during Luckman’s HS and Columbia years. (My father played varsity shortly after.) The LIFE magazine cover of Luckman from October 24, 1938 carrying the headline, “Best Passer” is a favorite heirloom.
The field at Erasmus Hall was named for him in the fall of 1994, and the full-page article about the ceremony ran in the NY Times on December 2, 1994, the day after my father died. He absolutely would have loved to have seen that honor.
Thanks for publishing so many pictures of the 1940s Bears, my dad’s favorite team, and of his cousin, Hall of Famer Sid Luckman. That really made my day.
—Jon B.[/quote]
Great to hear that Jon, about your background.[/quote]
I know i’m way late to the dance, but I’d like to echo these sentiments as well, Jon. That Sid was one tough hombre.