Put a Cork in It

Screen shot 2012-04-10 at 10.19.46 PM.png

Click to enlarge

The latest creations from Comrade Robert Marshall are these little bottle stoppers. The one on the left, which he made for Phil, is a Giants player (duh). The one on the right, which he made for me, is based on a Packers template but has lots of Paul-centric details: The “AMCBW” on the chest stands for the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, which explains why the helmet logo is a meat cleaver (note the little hole in the top corner of the logo, just like on a real cleaver). The little TV number in the cleaver stands for Local 342, the union’s Brooklyn chapter. And the base reads, “Prospect Park Champs, ’57.”

Cute li’l buggers, ain’t they? I’m happy to report that I’ve already made good use of mine. Thanks, Moose — you’re the best.

Another new ESPN column today, about the possibility (remote, in my view, but still disturbing) of the NBA voting to adopt uniform advertising at their Board of Governors meeting. Look here.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Donovan “ColorWerx” Moore has some news about some new NFL color tweaks. ”¦ The MLB Opening Day logo is red, white, and blue, like the American flag. But the one used in Toronto downplays the blue element and has no stars. Too bad they couldn’t work in a maple leaf (good spot by Johnny Bruno). ”¦ Mike Hersh found some good stuff in the new Heritage Auctions listings, including a really odd House of David jersey, a great WFL zebra uniform, and an old hockey team called the Fishermen who wore a fish as a chest logo. Like, shouldn’t the fish at least have a hook in its mouth or something? ”¦ Tons — and I mean tons — of good WLAF/NFL Europe photos and memorabilia showcased on this site (from HHH). ”¦ During yesterday’s Mets/Nats game, Mets radio broadcaster Howie Rose mentioned that the Mets have unofficially decided upon a protocol of wearing the pinstripes for home night games and the snow whites for home day games. ”¦ Re-engineered jerseys for the CFL (from Noah Sidel). ”¦ Pretty exhaustive article on uni numbers in soccer (from Patrick Runge). ”¦ You say po-tay-to, I say insurance. ”¦ Here’s a better look at those new U. of Houston logos. ”¦ More teaser info about the new Missouri uniforms, which will be unveiled this Saturday (from Terry Wehrend). ”¦ Barcelona will wear black for the Champions League semi-finals (from Chris Cruz). ”¦ New kit for Chelsea (from George Chilvers). ”¦ Great find by Chris Fox, who spotted Mariners second baseman Dustin Ackley wearing his wedding band during last night’s game. And yes, he was in the lineup last night — played the whole game. ”¦ For catchers who don’t want to paint their fingernails white, there’s now a stick-on product. Much like stick-on eye black, this seems much less satisfying than doing it the old-school way (thanks, Brinke). ”¦ Check it out: The graphics on the Astros’ Colt .45s throwbacks were chain-stitched! Very nice. Ditto for the shooting star throwbacks that’ll be worn later this season (big thanks to Colin Sherrod). … Jason Franklin was watching last night’s Warriors/Blazers game and noticed that JJ Hickson was still wearing his purple sneakers from his time with the Kings. ”¦ Whoa, look at the really unusual uni number format used by Detroit Mercy softball (big thanks to Matthew Daley). ”¦ In case you didn’t know, shoe companies play a huge role in college basketball recruiting (from Matthew Robins).

156 comments to Put a Cork in It

  • Kevin P. | April 12, 2012 at 7:48 am |

    Those Colt .45 unis didn’t say “Colts”.. maybe they were chain-stitched, but that’s not one of them.

  • Ilana Hardesty | April 12, 2012 at 8:13 am |

    …Glad to see you’re a rye drinker, Paul!

    • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 8:16 am |

      Actually, I almost never drink whiskey, but I know a fair amount about it, have written about it, etc., and I always have the basics on hand (bourbon, rye, Scotch, Irish) for houseguests.

      • Mike Engle | April 12, 2012 at 8:36 am |

        So what *is* your drink?

        • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 8:51 am |


          On a hot summer day, or if I’m in a cocktail-y I can occasionally go a gin & tonic or a gimlet. But that only happens a coupla times a year.

        • Arr Scott | April 12, 2012 at 8:56 am |

          Please please please let Paul be a tiki drink drinker. The most Paul-like writer in the tiki world seems to have drifted away of late, so there’s currently a Paul-shaped hole in tiki journalism!

      • jdreyfuss | April 12, 2012 at 10:36 am |

        I need to get some Irish whiskey to round out my bar. I’ve got the bourbon, Scotch, and rye already, plus gin, vodka, brandy, and dark and light rum.

    • StLMarty | April 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm |

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
      Old Crow is the best bang for your buck.
      And it was good enough for Grant and Twain.

  • Dan | April 12, 2012 at 8:14 am |

    SO yesterday hockey jerseys sponsored by Fisher’s Blend and Shurfine were “beauties” but today we are getting a column about the “disturbing” possibility of ad’s on NBA uniforms? What if Surefine(which is still around today) sponsors a team? Are they ‘douchebags’ like Nike now? Soooo Jersey sponsors were ok in 1929 because the uniforms were textured and made of wool but they aren’t ok today because… why? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see ad’s on NBA jerseys- ever- but let’s be consistent here.

    • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 8:23 am |

      Typical case of someone trying to play gotcha without thinking things thru.

      1) It’s entirely possible that the Fisher’s Blend and Shurfine teams were company teams, like your company softball team (i.e., the players were company employees). In that case, it wouldn’t be an ad — it would be an entirely appropriate team uniform.

      2) If those weren’t company teams, they were likely local amateur teams being sponsored by the local business, just like Chico’s Bail Bonds on a Little League uni. I’ve always said I have no problem with that.

      Stop trying to paint me with a broad brush as being 100% against something (advertising, sponsorship, Nike), when in fact my positions are more nuanced than that. I’m opposed to NBA jersey ads because (a) the league is already rolling in dough and doesn’t need more money and (b) the bond between a major-level sports team, its fans, and its uniform is a very special bond that shouldn’t be sold out. There’s a huge difference between a MasterCard patch on the Lakers uniform and a rec league being sponsored by a local business.

      • ThePonchat | April 12, 2012 at 8:57 am |

        It’s alright to be 100% against Nike. I am.

        The only reason I “have” to even have that swoosh is because Manchester United and US soccer are both Nike teams. Bummer.


        • George Chilvers | April 12, 2012 at 9:04 am |

          Man United? After last night, who are they??

        • Shane | April 12, 2012 at 9:14 am |

          Still five points up on the City, ol’ bean.

        • George Chilvers | April 12, 2012 at 9:32 am |

          As a Wigan supporter, Shane, frankly I don’t give a damn who’s ahead of who at the top end of the Greed League :)

        • ThePonchat | April 12, 2012 at 11:05 am |

          George Chilvers:

          I know, I know…it was rough admitting it!

        • Silver Creek Dawg | April 12, 2012 at 9:31 pm |

          I hated the see the Red Devils lose, but Wigan thoroughly deserved the three points. I’m happy for Roberto martinez; I enjoyed his World Cup commentary in 2010 and hope ESPN will continue to employ him in that role for the Euros this summer.

      • T'Challa | April 12, 2012 at 9:26 am |

        Woah there Paul there is no place for nuance on teh internetz, everything gets drawn out to the most extreme conclusion. Oh and those corks pretty awesome, Esp the meatcutters. the little details really make it great

      • Arr Scott | April 12, 2012 at 9:35 am |

        Paul, I’d be curious in a future lead item to read your thoughts on various levels of corporate advertising on sports unis. On the one end, you have a team just selling ad space on its jerseys to a third party, like most of the world’s soccer teams or possibly someday the NBA. On the other end of the spectrum, you have company teams, which let us remember have never existed as altruistic ventures to promote the health of the citizenry, but rather have always been about both advertising and workplace morale/retention. Now, I’m with you on finding the latter charming and the former very disturbing. But there’s also a lot of gray area in between. You mention amateur teams being sponsored by a corporation (again, for marketing, not altruistic, reasons). There’s also a long history of semi-pro teams sponsored by but not owned or operated by companies. And then in some leagues, such as Japanese baseball, you have actual pro teams owned and operated by, and named for, giant corporations. Nippon Ham Fighters, Yomiuri Giants. (Thankfully, we never got the WGN Cubs, but we did sort of de facto have the Disney Angels and Mighty Ducks.)

        There’s a lot of room on the spectrum between the extremes of easy approval and easy condemnation, and I find that personally, my reaction to anything between the extremes is based as much on aesthetic preferences as on any consistent principle. So I’d be curious someday to read what you think about the middle-of-the-spectrum cases.

  • Phil Sulak | April 12, 2012 at 8:22 am |
    • JamesP. | April 12, 2012 at 9:25 am |

      Even if the stripes were too wide, it was still awesome to see the stirrups being worn.

      Here’s how they should have looked: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/attachments/ootp-mods-rosters-photos-quick-starts/207890d1297627225-gambo-t_wil1-photopack-don-larsen-1964-houston-colt-45s.jpg

      • T'Challa | April 12, 2012 at 9:44 am |

        ooh good catch, although I like the wider stripes myself

        • JamesP. | April 12, 2012 at 9:55 am |

          Owning a pair of the Colt .45 stirrups Comrad Robert Marshall offered a couple years back made seeing the wider stripe as too clunky, and a detail that should have been easy to copy. Also, the loop looked a bit too long for the era. Ricko will probably correct me if I am wrong, but the stirrup shouldn’t have been stretched as high as it was worn the other night.

        • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 10:02 am |

          You’re right. Stirrups way to high for 1962.

          Different fabric and knitting for stirrups back then. Didn’t stretch as far. That’s why the Frank Robinsons and Vada Pinsons of the world would have two pair of socks sewn together to create the longer stirrup.

        • rpm | April 12, 2012 at 12:39 pm |

          they should have contactd me. i offer my help all thge time, but they rarely listen.

  • ChrisH | April 12, 2012 at 8:34 am |

    Jakub Voracek’s front helmet # was missing last night.


    Go Flyers!

  • Shane | April 12, 2012 at 8:59 am |

    I like simple designs, but the new Chelsea shirt is borderline boring. Needs a white collar or something.

    • ThePonchat | April 12, 2012 at 11:06 am |


      But who cares…about them Blues…

    • Andy | April 12, 2012 at 11:44 am |

      Boring my ass. That’s what a soccer shirt should look like. The not oft seen combo of royal blue and metallic gold is very classy as well.

    • Andrew L. | April 12, 2012 at 3:38 pm |

      The rusty gold is a bit silly, but the most annoying thing about adidas design right now is the truncated stripes. They’re your trademark! Let the stripes have the whole sleeve!

      • Chris | April 12, 2012 at 4:10 pm |

        The truncated stripes serve a purpose. As shown in the pictures, the Premier League or Champions League (or Europa League depending on how Chelsea fare this year) patch goes there. Adidas has been doing this for some time. The alternative would be to have the stripes going all the way down the sleeve but it would be very difficult to iron the patch on as the stripes are usually separate strips of material and the patch would end up bumpy and might fall off.

  • Dan | April 12, 2012 at 9:16 am |


    Stop being so defensive. Relax a little bit- not everyone is out to criticize you or play ‘gotcha’ as you put it. Have another glass of Rye and calm down.

    My point was less about the advertisements themselves and more about the new vs. old double standard that takes place here. The same thing tends to happen when a modern team develops a ‘radical’ looking uniform, much like the Maryland state flag football uni’s from last year. Those things are ugly as hell but I guarantee that if they wore those in 1935 and someone sent a black and white picture in a ticker submission everyone would go ga ga over them. I could think of other examples as well if I went back through the site. What if the Broncos had never worn those brown uni’s with the vertical striped socks and Nike debuted them last week? Or what about those Steelers uni’s with the yellow shoulder yoke? What if Nike debuted those as part of a new NFL design template? I promise you the word “douchebag” would have been tossed around at least a few times. It happens everywhere in life. Things that are old and defunct and simply memory in black and white photos tend to be glorified in today’s society. That is my overall point. It happens on this site, too. Perhaps I should have been more clear with my original comment.

    But, this is why I rarely comment here. Yes, Paul, you are so very nuanced and well rounded. I get it. You like meat and clothing labels and so many other things besides uniforms. The rest of us could all learn to be so much more worldly and thoughtful. I mean, I’ve never BEEN to a dive bar in Milwaukee.I get it, you hate corporate intrusion and ‘douchebaggery.’ Which in itself seems a bit hypocritical from someone who cashes checks from ESPN- perhaps the most douchebaggy corporation in all of entertainment- and roots for the New York Mets.

    Don’t worry, though, you won’t seem me in the comments anymore. I’ll keep my opinions to myself. In the future, you could stand to be a bit more conversational and a bit less defensive. Again, not everyone is out to get you. Relax.

    • Bernard | April 12, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • Winter | April 12, 2012 at 10:36 am |

      A lot of backlash lately.

      What’s up with that?

      • Chris Holder | April 12, 2012 at 10:52 am |

        My guess is, Paul is tackling some more political/argumentative topics in his commentaries lately, rather than strictly uni-related stuff. Which is fine by me. I like to think that there is a pretty intelligent community here. Most of us – and I need to stress most – seem to be able to air out our differences, but at the end of the day could probably sit down and have a beer together (though unfortunately I’m yet to actually meet anyone from here and do that – we need a Southern Uni-Watch convention, Paul!). I enjoy good discussion, even if some of it turns heated. If that’s not your bag of chips (“your” in the general sense), then perhaps this isn’t the blog for you. To each his own.

    • Lee | April 12, 2012 at 11:44 am |

      First of all, there is a ‘reply’ function you could have used, but anyways…

      And who is being defensive? You called Paul out, and he replied. In a very reasonable manner, in my opinion. All Paul asked you to do was stop painting him with a broad brush (which you did, again, in my opinion).

      So he responds to your rather pointed (and some may say “overly aggressive”) post, and then you come up with this: “Don’t worry, though, you won’t seem me in the comments anymore. I’ll keep my opinions to myself. In the future, you could stand to be a bit more conversational and a bit less defensive. Again, not everyone is out to get you. Relax.”

      Funny, you have some decent/valid points, yet rather than discussion, you choose passive aggressive. And then tell Paul to “relax”.

      As a 3rd party observer, I do feel like someone needs to relax. However, and again in my opinion, it’s not Paul, at least not this time.



    • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 12:25 pm |

      My point was less about the advertisements themselves and more about the new vs. old double standard that takes place here.

      But you didn’t raise a double standard. As I pointed out (and as you failed to acknowledge or respond to), your example was faulty.

      When I point out a flaw in your logic, that’s not being defensive; that’s just pointing out a flaw in your logic.

      As for all the other ideas you’ve expressed here, you’ve constructed a very amusing little cartoon doll of me. Have fun throwing darts at it. But at the end of the day, this is just another case of someone trying to make the argument about me, instead of actually dealing with the ideas being expressed. Forget about the messenger; try dealing with the message. In this case, the message is that there’s a big difference between advertising on NBA jerseys and a company hockey team. If you have a good response to that, we’ll all waiting.

    • The Slammer | April 12, 2012 at 7:05 pm |

      I do tend to agree with Dan, it’s pretty evident that “old is good/new is bad” around here. I just wish Paul would judge uniforms on their look rather than their age.

      Similar for the Islanders using the fish logo. It’s a beautiful uniform because its old. If the Islanders ripped that out back in the 90’s it would be one of Paul’s top 10 worst uniforms.

  • Kevin P. | April 12, 2012 at 9:18 am |

    Ah, my fault! I’m not sure what I was thinking..

  • Gusto44 | April 12, 2012 at 9:33 am |

    In my book, the top four WLAF logos/uniforms in no particular order:

    Orlando Thunder
    New York/NJ Knights
    Birmingham Fire
    Frankfurt Galaxy

    • Lee | April 12, 2012 at 11:36 am |

      I was always partial to Barcelona.


  • Connie | April 12, 2012 at 9:35 am |

    That fish hockey sweater is fabulous.

    Chilvers, by the way, is over the proverbial moon because somewhat less than mighty Wigan smote the odious Man U. Coupled with their recent win over Liverpool, the MU upset may keep Wigan out of the fate almost worse than death called Relegation. I suggest that UW send a nosegay to Chilvers plus a couple of hundred-dollar bills. Wording of cover letter TK.

    • JTH | April 12, 2012 at 10:22 am |

      Oh, I’ll have to mention that one to my wife. It’s not that she gives a shit about soccer; she just loathes Manchester United because of the Aon connection.

      Yes, I called it soccer. Deal with it.

      • George Chilvers | April 12, 2012 at 10:24 am |

        Today, JTH, you can call it whatever you like :)

        • JTH | April 12, 2012 at 10:29 am |

          Also, the words “boots” and “kits” don’t describe athletic wear in my personal lexicon.

        • Ry Co 40 | April 12, 2012 at 10:39 am |

          thankfully, JTH, my knowledge of soccer is well enough that when i see descriptors (red flags) such as “kits” “arsenal” “messi” etc., i just happily skip on to the next link…

      • George Chilvers | April 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm |

        After last night Man U and AON share something:

    • George Chilvers | April 12, 2012 at 10:22 am |

      More than over the moon, Connie – supergalactic (if that’s a word, and if it isn’t well it is now!)
      We ARE staying up :)

    • snowdan | April 12, 2012 at 1:22 pm |

      Yeah, why do all the modern teams have to have an angry cartoon animal? There is something really endearing about that sweater.

    • [name redacted] | April 12, 2012 at 4:51 pm |

      I like when people complain that people give futbol scores and say “nil” instead of zero. But they usually don’t mind when tennis scores say “love.”

      I’m of the thought that using sport-specific jargon is good, so we don’t get things like that NHL ad that says hockey has “two halftimes.”

  • John M. | April 12, 2012 at 9:37 am |

    Why couldn’t the Islanders have busted out the Selkirk Fishermen sweaters in ’95? Or this season as 3rds? Those things are excellent in their simplicity.

  • Connie | April 12, 2012 at 9:40 am |

    And R Scott is a terrific voice on this site. Love your scope.

    • interlockingtc | April 12, 2012 at 7:53 pm |

      I agree. (Except when he rants about the original Twins script. ;) )

  • Mike | April 12, 2012 at 9:44 am |

    Hey Comrade Marshall…will you be taking orders for those amazing bottle stoppers? I would love one, maybe even two.

    • rpm | April 12, 2012 at 12:48 pm |

      sorry, but they are a bit to much work to try to sell, as of now they are gifts and thank yous to family. i made maybe 15 or 20 out of the leftovers from the osuum blues project.

      • rpm | April 12, 2012 at 12:58 pm |

        i also have this pesky moving back to chicago in less then 2 months business to take care of which will limit me to stockings for now. but if you ever did need something for a special occasion or something, of course feel free to ask.

    • Arr Scott | April 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm |

      Those are amazing! But any chance of throwing a bone to those of us who aren’t necessarily gridiron fans? I’m talking, of course, about curling figurine bottle stoppers.

      That, or bottle stoppers with just the head, whether football or baseball or whatever. But don’t let my idle dreaming take away from the real point of just what amazing pieces of American folk art Comrade Marshall has once again unleashed on the world. Mind-blowingly brilliant work, as always.

      • rpm | April 12, 2012 at 1:01 pm |

        someday maybe a lil baseball dud, but the curling would be fun to paint and personalize.

        i was all ready to join a curling team on the northside of KC, but i had to scrap it with the move.

        • rpm | April 12, 2012 at 1:05 pm |

          and i do have 5 or so molds of this form. if anybody really did want to try their hand at making their own army, i could part with a mold. but be warned, it can be frustrating.

  • JTH | April 12, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • T'Challa | April 12, 2012 at 11:17 am |

      Kinda, I mean as the source article says its been going on a long time and will continue to. I can’t get all worked up about it because simply kids make arbitrary decisions based on random reasons all the time. He’s a CBB recruit who chose one powerhouse program that’s a pipeline to the NBA over another because he likes one brand of sneakers more than another, or more accurately because he’s got a relationship with one versus another. Hell he might have gone to UCLA because let’s face it LA is a lot cooler than Lexington, which I’m sure is a great town, btw.

  • TOMtiger | April 12, 2012 at 10:58 am |

    I’d be totally cool with the Astro’s becoming the Colts next year. Whatever their name is, they need to pick up the orange and blue colors

    • Winter | April 12, 2012 at 11:04 am |

      Crane’s already gotten the backlash about even possibly changing the name. Not going to happen.

      Doesn’t mean they won’t discard the brick uni’s. Personally, I’m hoping for a return to the orange/blue shooting star uni’s.

    • Chris Holder | April 12, 2012 at 11:49 am |

      While I admit I loved the Colt 45s/original Astros unis, I think I’d be against a return to blue and orange, if only because it’s a combo already in use in the Majors for multiple teams. I want to see something different, though I realize I may be in the minority.

      If it has to be something close to the original colors, I would like to see it tweaked to be maybe more of a dark purple and a reddish orange. But I guess that would just be arguing semantics.

      • TOMtiger | April 12, 2012 at 11:57 am |

        who has orange and blue besides the mets and tigers?

        the mets have their own unique orange and blue too. the tigers rarely use orange except on the english d’s in the road unis

        the ‘stros could get orange hats! thats cool.

        maybe the city wants to stick to blue and red as a “town theme”.

        • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

          And royal and navy hardly track as similar colors.
          The Dodgers and Yankees certainly don’t look much alike.
          In that sense.

          Orange hats? Let’s not forget these…
          …which preceded the Tequila Sunrises.

        • JTH | April 12, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

          The Tigers rarely use orange?

          Unless they’re doing a Negro League tribute or something, they ALWAYS wear orange on the road. So that’s 50% of their games. And it’s on their jerseys as well(and pants if you want to include the MLB logo).

        • Chris Holder | April 12, 2012 at 12:42 pm |

          I was thinking specifically of the Tigers, and I guess just threw in another random team (in my mind) without really thinking about it.

          And yes… navy and royal are certainly very different. It’s not that the blue and orange doesn’t work for the Astros – it does. It’s just my preference to see something different.

          I will agree that blue and orange would be infintely better than the current red and black, which is mostly just black.

        • Winter | April 12, 2012 at 12:57 pm |

          That would be a “Texas” theme — and next year they’re in the same division as Texas, who already has that color scheme.

        • TOMtiger | April 12, 2012 at 4:25 pm |

          “rarely use orange” was bad wording on my part.

          the orange is only used for trim. it’d be cool for a team to use orange with navy trim or something. orange and blue are the best complimentary colors. i grew up an auburn fan so i’m kind of biased. wde.

      • JamesP. | April 12, 2012 at 11:59 am |

        Astros used a Reddish-Orange when they became the Astros.

        • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

          No, they didn’t. Was the same generic catalog orange you’d see on the Orioles or the Browns at the time.

        • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

          Or on the Colt .45s before them.

        • TOMtiger | April 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm |

          its a 2 hr drive from Houston to Austin….maybe the ‘stros can use burnt orange…’hook em

        • Arr Scott | April 12, 2012 at 12:54 pm |

          Since the Rangers are all over the Texas flag thing, what about the Astros adopting burnt orange & maroon, and then some bright third accent color to mediate between them? Silver, say, or yellow, or a more-thoughtful-than-usual use of white?

          Personally, I’d love to see them keep the black, brighten the red, and find a more vibrant third color than “sand”, and then look to the old shooting-star unis for inspiration. Not for direct copycat revival, but for inspiration.

        • Winter | April 12, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

          They could use the Spanish flag…one of the “Six Flags over Texas” as the base. Red and yellow. (Also classically the colors of the Houston Rockets). Is there another team with that particular color combination in the majors right now?

        • Arr Scott | April 12, 2012 at 1:14 pm |

          Red and gold: no one else is doing that, and it’s a great combo. I had hoped back in the aughts that the Nats would move that direction, making red and gold their primary colors, with blue demoted to contrast accent. Astros would look great in those colors.

        • walter | April 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm |

          Oddly, I have never seen a red and yellow (gold) baseball team, outside of the Albuquerque Dukes.

        • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
      • Mark in Shiga | April 12, 2012 at 12:07 pm |

        I’m with you, Chris. Maybe it’s because I grew up watching the blue-and-orange clad Mets and Knicks, but it feels like there’s already enough of those colors together.

        I like the beige secondary color that the Astros use. They really have a great color scheme as it is, and I wish the Diamondbacks hadn’t butted in with their near-identical setup. The Astros should keep what they’ve got now, and the Diamondbacks should go back to their old purple, but with more of that copper accent color that no one else uses. Copper and white with purple accents would look great on the D-Backs.

        • Chris Holder | April 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm |

          I know love for purple is a darn-near punishable offense here at Uni-Watch, but it was the color of my alma mater and I happen to like it. It’s certainly under-utilized at the major league level. I definitely think Arizona should have kept it as part of their color scheme, though ditching the teal was fine.

      • Winter | April 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm |

        I just don’t want them wearing red caps (even if you argue “brick” is a variation of brown, it’s visually close) next year in the AL West. Texas and LAA already wear red caps in that division. Three teams in one division with the same color cap seems a little much. Personally, I wish the Rangers would dump their reds, too, but that’s just a personal preference for their blue caps.

        • Chris Holder | April 12, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

          Agreed. For that reason alone, red should be thrown out.

    • pflava | April 12, 2012 at 3:12 pm |

      I’m not sure what some of you guys are talking about – by my count, there’s exactly one team in MLB using navy and orange (Detroit), and even then it’s only used as a trim color on the roads. The Astros going back to it full time, as god intended, would actually be unique. Those shooting star uniforms, worn with the blue caps and sleeves, are some of the finest to ever grace a diamond. Just give those a Blue Jays modernization and you’re good to go.

      • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 4:17 pm |

        Thank you.

        Seeing navy & orange and royal & orange as the same color combination, or too similar, is just wrong.

        Nobody in his/her right mind buys a royal blue t-shirt and says, “There, now I match the Detroit Tigers.”

        (I included “Detroit” to avoid the inevitable comment, “What about the Memphis Tigers?”)

        • TOMtiger | April 12, 2012 at 4:54 pm |

          memphis is weird with their logos and colors. i’ve seen officially licensed navy t-shirts and royal blue t-shirts in the bookstore — of the same exact design. crazy.

  • Graf Zeppelin | April 12, 2012 at 11:22 am |

    Can’t wait to see the Mets’ road grays tomorrow night.

    I’ve been looking at some pics of the Mets’ home unis from 1997 (I got a game program from the first Interleague series at Shea, Mets-Red Sox), which as we all recall had a thin white outline around the script and lettering which the new ones (thankfully) don’t.

    It seems to me that the Mets script on the new home unis is slightly larger and thicker than the old drop-shadowless Mets script from 1995-98 [the pins still lacked drop-shadow in ’98] and the original that was used up until the team started wearing pullover jerseys. I don’t know if this has anything to do with the absent white outline. Anyone else notice this?

    When I have time I’ll do some scans and compare.

    Nevertheless, the Mets script looks fantastic without the drop-shadow; it really pops, and you can actually read “Mets” from a distance (the little ‘window’ in the “e” and the “s” makes all the difference).

  • Sam D. | April 12, 2012 at 11:30 am |

    Since they Mets will wear white during the day and pinstripes at night, when will they wear black? Paul, I remember you said they’d wear black very sparingly and mostly on the road, I just wonder what sort of occasion would call for the blacks.

    • Winter | April 12, 2012 at 11:42 am |

      Does any occasion really call for black Mets uniforms?

      • Rob H. | April 12, 2012 at 3:27 pm |

        Halloween? Oops, that would mean the Mets would have to make it into late October, and we all know how likely that is.

    • pfh64 | April 12, 2012 at 12:35 pm |

      The owner just can’t find it within himself to stop showing METS’ fans that he would rather own the Dodgers. Just another slap in the face of the Mets’ fans, as if over the past decade we have not been slapped enough. What happened to real Mets’ uniforms, especially for the 50th? And on the day of the first game, might have even been okay for them to go grey…let the Nats wear white. But hey, for $2.50, can’t really complain about that, now can I?


      • Graf Zeppelin | April 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

        Hmm… Has any MLB team ever worn its road greys (to include road powder-blues and other road color variations, not including softball tops) at home while the visiting team wore its home uniform in someone else’s ballpark? That would be an interesting little research project…

        • walter | April 12, 2012 at 2:04 pm |

          If it ever happened, then it probably happened to the Montreal Expos and the Seattle Mariners when repair issues at their home parks caused them to reschedule at the sites of their visitors. This was 15 or 20 years ago, IIRC.

        • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 2:25 pm |

          Or if the A’s, who wore kelly or gold jerseys with white pants both home and road, happened to be the opposition one of the times the Rangers wore their powder blue tops with their white pants.

          I think they did that at home in Arlington a couple times, right?

          But that’s sort of “bending” the idea, because of the A’s dual use.

        • ChrisH | April 12, 2012 at 2:46 pm |

          The Philles did just that in 2010 when they played the Blue Jays. Due to the security concerns of the G20 Summit in Toronto, MLB changed the site for the Blue Jays/Phillies series from SkyDome to CBP and treated the Jays as the home team (white jerseys, bottom of inning batting, etc…). I think SkyDome tickets were honored in Philly too, or at least Canadian fans were given preference in ticket purchasing.

        • Graf Zeppelin | April 12, 2012 at 3:09 pm |

          Good examples, viz., the home-field-switch-due-to-contingency. Has it ever happened by choice, viz., the home team chose to wear its road uni in a home game and let the visitors wear their home uni?

        • Rob H. | April 12, 2012 at 3:29 pm |

          Wasn’t there also a game last year that a road team played at home due to a Bono concert or something? (either Mariners or Marlins maybe?)

    • Graf Zeppelin | April 12, 2012 at 12:54 pm |

      I doubt we will (read: really, really, really hope we won’t) see the black at home at all. My hope is that we’ll see it, at most, once per month on the road.

      • Arr Scott | April 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm |

        And hopefully then only when there’s a good logistical excuse. Such as a getaway day game after a night game when the next date is also on the road.

  • Justin | April 12, 2012 at 11:48 am |

    Noticing that the Marlins wore the black jersey last night (they have now worn that top for all of their road games), I decided to find the name of and email the Marlins equipment manager.

    I asked him (John Silverman) about this and wondered is it the starting pitcher’s choice, have they scrapped the greys or are they thinking of redesigning the road greys?

    His response was: “It is the choice of the starting pitcher when we are on the road”.

    That must mean all of the pitchers dislike the grey top because (as of yesterday) they have all started on the road.

    • Chris Holder | April 12, 2012 at 11:50 am |

      So if all five starters prefer the black, does that mean the gray top will essentially never be worn?

      A good reason why it’s a stupid rule to let one guy decide what uniform 25 guys will wear on any given night.

      • George N. | April 12, 2012 at 12:00 pm |

        “A good reason why it’s a stupid rule to let one guy decide what uniform 25 guys will wear on any given night.”

        As opposed to letting the equipment manager pick? Because that would also be one guy choosing what 25 guys will wear.

        • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 12:07 pm |

          A baseball team is a democracy?

        • Chris Holder | April 12, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

          No, I don’t particularly like that idea either, but at least the equipment manager could set a defined rotation as to when different jerseys get used. Softball tops are most effective, in my eyes, if they are rarely worn. When they are worn every day it seems pretty tedious. But hey, I’m a traditionalist that LIKES white vs. gray when I’m watching a baseball game, so what do I know?

        • George N. | April 12, 2012 at 1:48 pm |

          Then again you might get an equipment manager like Charlie Samuels who, because he had a major hand in introducing black to the Mets color scheme, preferred to use the black. And since he was in charge of putting the uniforms out every day, almost all we ever saw was the black uniforms and hats.

          I’m with you on the whole “whites v. gray”, BTW.

    • Pedro | April 12, 2012 at 3:51 pm |

      You wanna pass along his e-mail address I can inquire myself? We can create change one e-mail at a time.

  • Ben D | April 12, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

    You know where that ISAY INSURANCE logo would look good? On the back of a sooccer goal ;)

    • ChrisH | April 12, 2012 at 2:36 pm |

      I’m “on your side”!

  • Ted B. | April 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

    Those corks are a beauty! Any chance Comrade Robert Marshall would share is method, or be willing to make one for a uni-obsessed booze drinker in need of a good cork?

    • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 1:05 pm |

      I asked him if he had step-by-step photos, and he said no. I asked if he wanted to sell them, and he said no. Even if he said yes to the latter, they’d be pricey (based on what he told me, I’d say $100ish sounds fair), because they take a fair amount of time to make and paint.

      • Mike V. | April 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm |

        To supplement costs and reduce prices, he could get corporate backing and slap a logo on there somewhere. Maybe somewhere subtle…like across the little guy’s face. Seems to be all the rage.

        • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 1:56 pm |

          Hey, great way for Nike to put a cork in it.

        • Mike V. | April 12, 2012 at 2:53 pm |


    • Jon K | April 12, 2012 at 1:44 pm |

      Awesome! Love the hypothetical back-and-forth.

      Also, didn’t something similar to the Peach Bowl example you gave at the end of the argument happen to the NY Metrostars in the MLS becoming the NY Red Bulls? Or was that a different situation?

      • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 1:55 pm |

        Yeah, but MLS is much lower-profile than the Chicken Sandwich Bowl, so it’s not as powerful an example.

    • mike 2 | April 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm |

      Early on in the article you asked a question: Is owning a major-level sports team a public trust? If so, what sorts of responsibilities accrue to ownership?

      I don’t think you answered it in the article.

      Which is kind of too bad, because it seems like how you answer that question determines a lot of what you think about issues like this.

      There are many owners who treat their sports team as a business. The team is there to produce a profit, a return on the investment, provide content for an affiliated broadcaster, etc. No element of public trust or responsibility.

      There are also owners who act as custodians of the team – the team really belongs to the fans, or the community, owning and running it in the public interest is part of their civic responsibility. They see their role as quite different. The team’s role isn’t to generate income and (on the eventual sale of the team) capital gains, its to fill some larger role in the community.

      I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to guess which set of owners would be in favour of not leaving a single dollar on the table, and which would have the bigger picture in mind.

      • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 4:11 pm |

        I answered it indirectly, by saying why I think major-level sports teams are civic entities.

    • HHH | April 12, 2012 at 3:34 pm |

      “(NASCAR doesn’t) play under the larger visual umbrella of a team uniform, so they don’t really apply to this discussion. We’re talking about ads on team jerseys here.”

      Each NASCAR driver has a pit crew, and each driver and crew wear the same uniform with the same ads all over them. Yes, they don’t wear jerseys, but they are definitely a team, competing against other teams.

      • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 4:13 pm |

        Yeah, and every boxer has a bunch of guys in his corner wearing matching embroidered shirts. But in both cases the “team” is based on one person. It’s not as if that person can be traded away and a new person can come in to take his place and we’ll still keep rooting for whomever wears the uniform.

        Apples and oranges.

        • Mike V. | April 12, 2012 at 4:28 pm |


          Its seems you have been saying “apples and oranges” a lot lately, especially today. How about we change it up. Create a new phrase based on your interests. Something like “porterhouses and pork chops”. Or if you wanted to stick with the same animal, how about “drumsticks and chicken wings”?

        • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 4:45 pm |

          Vinegar & Honey?

    • ChrisH | April 12, 2012 at 5:28 pm |

      I suppose the comments section is not called the conversation section for a pretty good reason…it’s not a great place for discussion and debate. That said, I’d like to offer some things to consider (and no, I’m not playing “gotcha”; you’ve had enough of that game today from Dan):

      Your second point leads off with a shot at Mark Cuban; not exactly ignoring the messenger there(though you did address the message rather well). What you call “agitating”, many see as ‘advocating’…he’s just putting his viewpoint out there, hoping to influence change, and ultimately it comes down to a vote, right?

      I’m not the ‘smartest guy in the room’, I’ll raise my hand there, but there’s a distinction between “team” and “franchise”, isn’t there? Can it be said that fans embrace and enjoy the former but are often repulsed by and ignore the latter? Granted, the ‘business end’ of anything often refers to areas that are pleasing to the senses.

      I’m also not clear on the definiton of “civic entities”. Would I be mistaken to consider police and fire departments civic entities? I would not want to see their uniforms plastered with ads, but those ‘players’ also swear an oath to protect and serve their communities; pro athletes are by and large self-serving and look out for themselves.

      Sorry for not being brief.

      • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm |

        Your second point leads off with a shot at Mark Cuban; not exactly ignoring the messenger there(though you did address the message rather well). What you call “agitating”, many see as ‘advocating’…he’s just putting his viewpoint out there, hoping to influence change, and ultimately it comes down to a vote, right?

        The people who read what he has to say don’t vote. The other NBA owners do. If he lobbies them, I’d call that advocating; if he tries to make a big stink in the press, which he’s been doing on this issue for years, yes, I’d call that agitating. And he wouldn’t be doing the latter if he’d had any success at the former. My point is not to take shots at him but to point out that his public opinion on the matter — an opinion that launched a few dozen articles last month — is largely irrelevant. That’s why I said I was providing a “reality check.” In other words, just because Mark Cuban is making a fuss over this issue, that’s not particularly newsworthy, and certainly not indicative of how the issue will play out.

        I’m also not clear on the definiton of “civic entities”. Would I be mistaken to consider police and fire departments civic entities? I would not want to see their uniforms plastered with ads, but those ‘players’ also swear an oath to protect and serve their communities; pro athletes are by and large self-serving and look out for themselves.

        First of all, this has nothing to do with the athletes. The whole point of the discussion (and, arguably, of Uni Watch) is that the uniform supersedes the athlete. We root for the uniform no matter who’s wearing it.

        Civicity (not a real word, but work with me here): I didn’t say pro teams are exclusively civic entities (like, yes, a fire department); I said they’re civic entities in addition to being business entities. They can do certain things a fire department can’t (sell naming rights, sell TV rights, etc.), but I feel there’s one thing they shouldn’t sell, namely space on the uniform, because that is the one thing that unites generations of people — a very civic exercise.

        • ChrisH | April 12, 2012 at 5:57 pm |

          Thank you for the reply! “We root for the uniform no matter who’s wearing it”. Nice!

        • Arr Scott | April 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm |

          I’m pretty old-fashioned with regard to corporate civic responsibility, which makes me a small-c Adam Smith conservative. And I think that sports teams incur an added responsibility to faithfully represent their city or state – to be good citizens, and to operate in the public interest above and beyond mere profit-seeking – for two main reasons: 1. Teams trade on people’s attachment or loyalty to a place to gain the loyalty and repeat business of fans from that place; and 2. These days, most teams play in facilities built at the public expense.

          But. I honestly cannot see a connection between the heightened civic responsibility I believe a team owes to the public and the presence or absence of advertisement on its uniforms. I don’t like ads on uniforms! But that’s basically an aesthetic issue for me – I don’t like ads anywhere. I have not encountered a convincing argument by which ads on, say, the outfield wall can be OK but ads on the sleeve cannot. What’s more, we already have ads on just about every pro uniform in America – it’s just that the league sells the ad space, not the teams, and we’re kind of used to seeing that little Majestic icon or the Nike swoosh or whatever on the sleeve. That’s not a tag, it’s an ad.

          I’m more concerned that teams express some kind of faithful representation of their place in their uniforms than that the uniforms be ad-free. And community involvement, such as fostering youth participation in the sport at an amateur level. That sort of thing. Ads on the uni just doesn’t seem to me to have any relevancy to corporate citizenship.

          Anyway, this is not a theoretical question. We have decades of practical, real-world evidence we could examine. Are generations of people in a given place actually less united around local teams that sell ad space on uniforms than around local teams that keep their unis ad-free? This is a question that can actually be answered, for example by comparing metrics of fan loyalty in England before and after the introduction of ads on soccer shirts. Or by comparing fan engagement in similar sports in different leagues or countries with and without uni ads.

        • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 6:32 pm |

          Ads on the uni just doesn’t seem to me to have any relevancy to corporate citizenship.

          I strongly disagree. Because, as I’ve said, the uniform is the primary thing that bonds the fans to the team across generations.

          Everyone here knows I really, really love the Mets and really, really hate the Yankees. But if the entire Mets roster is traded for the entire Yankees roster today — 25 guys for 25 guys, straight up — who am I rooting for tomorrow?

          Answer: I’m rooting for the guys wearing the Mets uniforms, even if I hated them the day before. That’s the power of the uniform. And that’s why it should never be sold out.

      • Winter | April 12, 2012 at 5:53 pm |

        For me…and only for me…my problem with ads on uniforms is kind of corollary to Seinfeld’s “rooting for laundry” bit. I do see sports teams as civic entities be they representing actual cities, like say the Los Angeles Dodgers, or universities (state universities have an especially interesting aspect in that the Indiana Hoosiers represent the wider state as well where the Notre Dame Fighting Irish do not), I am inherently rooting for the name on the front of the jersey, be it Los Angeles, Indiana, Notre Dame, or Hickman High School. When you put ads on, it muddies the waters. A few years ago, to root for Mark Martin somehow gets me rooting for “the Viagra car”. Logically, I know that’s only a sponsor, but it’s ever ubiquitous, with everything covered with the Viagra logo for Mark Martin, or say GoDaddy (whose policies I abhor) if I choose to follow Danica Patrick.

        I know that it’s not directly logical connection. I know they’re just sponsors. But it doesn’t feel right. As far as soccer teams go, I have to say I’m turned off of the LA Galaxy because I don’t like HerbaLife. I don’t like having to think about diet supplements when I’m watching soccer. One of the great things for me about watching European soccer is I don’t know what half of the company sponsors are, so they don’t bother me as much.

        For me, it’s a taste thing. As in, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’m okay rooting for laundry when it represents a city. When it represents a profit-making enterprise? Unless it’s Bob’s Auto Body and Bob’s on the team, it rubs me the wrong way.

        • Jeremy | April 13, 2012 at 9:13 am |

          Completely agree with you here. I have always been a big Barca fan, and one reason was the front of their jerseys. While other teams were plastered with corporate sponsors, Barcelona actually gave a donation to UNICEF each year to allow them to put their name on the jersey. Then, this year, they switch to being sponsored by the Qatar Foundation, a group with possible ties to terrorist organizations, and relegate UNICEF to the back of the jersey under the numbers. Now I’m not sure I can support them as much as I used to

  • Arr Scott | April 12, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

    Nice looking game underway in Washington, with Reds in their grays vs Nats in home whites. One thing, though: Jayson Werth is wearing the longest jersey sleeves I’ve seen this side of an Ebbets Field Flannels Federal League repro. Down to, maybe past, his elbow, with the Nats sleeve patch resting toward the bottom of the sleeve with what looks like a foot of white cloth above it.

    • ChrisH | April 12, 2012 at 2:33 pm |

      Werth favored the long short sleeves (or is it short long sleeves?) when he was with the Phillies too…


    • mike 2 | April 12, 2012 at 2:49 pm |

      Are those long sleeves or is it just a really big jersey? When I see the seam that far down from the shoulder, I usually think the jersey is huge.

      • Paul Lukas | April 12, 2012 at 3:11 pm |

        He likes it a big baggy, but he *really* likes his sleeves long. Always has.

        • Arr Scott | April 12, 2012 at 3:34 pm |

          Which pretty well outs me as someone who mainly listens to Nats games on the radio, or on the radio bits of the MLB At Bat app. I’ve already watched more Nats games on TV this year than I did all of last season.

          And yes, those are definitely longer-than-normal sleeves, not just an oversized jersey.

  • Mike V. | April 12, 2012 at 1:18 pm |

    Have to hand it to the Astros on the quality of their throwbacks so far. It seems most teams half-ass it or cut corners when it comes to detail, accuracy and accessories. The Astros had batting helmets, stirrups, and great tailoring. Wonder if each uni-way…errrrr…uni set will get its own batting helmet, etc. If so, kudos. I say they will by the looks of it.

    Also, I don’y really like to swear in posts, but regarding the chain-stiching….holy fucking shit fuck, is that just the bee’s knees or what? A real beauty. Chain sticking is the best thing to happen to unis since stirrups…or are stirrups the best thing to happen to unis since chain-stiching? Not sure what came first, but you get my point. Anyway, chain-stiching, hot damn.

  • Rex | April 12, 2012 at 1:19 pm |

    I’m loving the new University of Houston logo. The multiple and oddly spaced outlines and stacked letters drove me bonkers. The uniformity and equal spacing in the outlines is much cleaner, which also results in uniformity between merchandise manufacturers.

  • phillydevil | April 12, 2012 at 2:38 pm |

    Arizona State has published a gallery of Sun Devil baseball uniforms throughout the years.


  • Ricko | April 12, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • walter | April 12, 2012 at 3:41 pm |

      I like their team colors.

    • Wheels | April 12, 2012 at 4:22 pm |

      Does it come in a BP version?

  • Rob H. | April 12, 2012 at 4:27 pm |

    I see Johnny Damon is possibly going to sign with Cleveland – this will be his seventh A.L. team (KC, OAK, BOS, NYY, DET, TB). I wonder if this is the record for most teams played for in one league without playing in the other?

    • jdreyfuss | April 12, 2012 at 4:54 pm |

      Just what the Indians need. Another left handed slap hitter.

  • Tim E. O'B | April 12, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Phil Hecken | April 12, 2012 at 6:09 pm |


      glad he’s outta NY, but he was a great dude

      • Brinke | April 12, 2012 at 8:59 pm |

        great story- i remember the deal last year with the 100.00 bill. he oughta get himself traded to the A’s.

  • Oakville Endive/Celery Root | April 12, 2012 at 8:05 pm |

    Marlins again wearing black, greys are stuck in the closet ……again

    • Phil Hecken | April 12, 2012 at 8:38 pm |

      joe blanton just might give strasburg a run in the blousing department

  • Josh | April 12, 2012 at 9:48 pm |

    If anyone is watching the Blues-Sharks game, I’d appreciate a screen cap with about 13 or 14 minutes left in the third. Looks like Blues Winger T.J. Oshie got his 4 knocked off of his helmet. He wears #74, but I believe I saw him with only number 7 left on his helmet after being hit hard.
    Sorry for no pic, I’m pretty low tech.

  • H | April 13, 2012 at 8:44 am |

    Love the smokeless tobacco ads!!