[Editor’s Note: This morning we have a guest article from UW pal/contributor Oliver Kodner, who runs the fantastic Cardinals Uniforms and Logos website (and absolute best single-team uniform database in MLB). Oliver noticed Stance Socks still haven’t updated the “St.L” logo on their socks. That’s peak Uni Watching — Enjoy! — PH]
Stance Socks Still Using Pre-2020 STL Logo
by Oliver Kodner
Yesterday the Cardinals Instagram posted some pictures from Spring Training, and it gave us this fantastic photo of prospect Tink Hence.
Before getting into the details, let us just say, this is the correct way to wear the uniform. He looks fantastic on the mound with the red glove, high socks, red shoes, the whole ensemble. Tink, you look incredible wearing the Cardinals uniform.
But zoom in on Tink’s left calf. I guess MLB’s sock manufacturer, Stance, can’t be bothered to update the graphics on their garments from 5 years ago. That STL logo seen on the socks is the STL first used in 1963, and was worn up until it was refreshed in 2020. Zoom in, take a look.
The giveaway is the T with the trapezoid shaped top, and the S with the mismatched serifs on either sides. Here is the detailed comparison seen below.
So again, it’s been 5 years since we’ve updated our STL logo, why hasn’t Stance bothered to fix the logo? Nike and Fanatics have been burning money wildly in the past couple years trying to “fix” things. What about Stance? Perhaps if no one notices, and apparently no one cares, why change it? Perhaps Stance won’t spend any extra money fixing something that no one seems to care about if they’re still selling merchandise.
I went to Stance’s website to see if their On Field merchandise still has the old STL, and yes it does!
But interestingly enough, the Off Field merchandise has the new STL…
So they have the new graphics, they know we’ve made the change, they just aren’t updating the official on-field socks for some unknown reason.
Might be time for me to take a break from this place. I am irrationally annoyed that this is a standalone article.
Perhaps you’d like to contribute an article Charlie? We’re in a period with very little new uniform news.
……..and Phil drops the mic!
Boom goes the dynamite.
That video happened to show up on my feed yesterday, it never gets old.
I might just take you up on that!
I don’t understand the response from the peanut gallery. That felt like a reasonable reply to my honest comment.
Honestly, I think it was too much to explain in a ticker. I personally, need the explanation. With the current format this was a great stand-alone. From the standpoint of it being Stance, sure – who cares? But they are still part of the official uniform.
Interesting that you were annoyed at this being a standalone. I’m not questioning your comment (if you are annoyed, you are annoyed, and it doesn’t matter what I think about that), but honestly, an article about just this sort of minutia seems to me to be pretty much on par for the site. That is, it’s not major news, but it’s just the kind of small, mostly unnoticed detail I have a jones for. And, Paul pointed out stuff like this all the time in days past. Nothing earth shattering, but I love these sort of observations.
Since you mentioned Paul, I think part of it is the fact that this type of information would previously have occupied a small section of the daily post. As others have pointed out, it’s a little bit too deep to be a Ticker item.
With that being said, I do prefer the multiple publications each day, as I prefer to visit the site periodically throughout the day, and it allows for more discussion on the specific topic of each post.
Paul used to have a saying (and I might be paraphrasing a *bit*) but it’s apt.
“Uni Watch may not be everything you want it to be, but it’s everything I want it to be.”
And while I certainly value feedback from all readers, UW will continue to do what UW does. If Charlie doesn’t like that, that’s absolutely his prerogative. But the site will not be everything Charlie wants it to be.
I’ve noticed a general uptick in griping in the Uni-Watch comment section recently. Perhaps it’s a symptom of a general cultural distress, a byproduct of the sheer volume of uniform changes/alts/etc…, or some of column a some of column b, but it’s kind of a bummer.
It’s fine to have opinions about something posted here, but I feel like a comment like the above is best kept to oneself or, at most, shared over email.
I couldn’t disagree more.
I don’t think I’ve been any more positive or negative than normal lately. In fact, with the recent staffing changes and the uptick in negative comments about uniform concepts, I’ve found myself consciously making more positive comments, or at least defending UW/authors against what I think are overly harsh critiques.
As for keeping such comments to myself or sharing them privately… That doesn’t make any sense. Are we supposed to keep our mouths shut when we think something is wrong? Are we supposed to pretend that we’re happy with everything, and just allow things to continue as they are? Or are we supposed to leave without a word? As long as nobody is being overly rude or personally criticizing others, I think it’s our duty to speak up so that others who may share their opinion don’t think their alone, or so that those who disagree, such as yourself, may voice such opinions. Silence is never the answer.
We’ll see you here tomorrow lol
Oh. You are annoyed that on the Uni Watch website, folks are watching unis. Got ya.
I got into hot water with Paul once over the importance of socks but I learned my lesson well from him, especially with baseball and football socks do matter. This might not be major uniform news but it is an interesting detail and shows a keen eye for details. Personally I still prefer the imperfect STL over the current corrected one but that is just me. I am not a perfectionist at heart.
I’ve always thought Stance Socks made it seem like watching a girl’s high school cheerleading contest.
I’m shocked that straight? men think this is a good look.
But it’s probably more that adults can’t seem to make up their own mind when it comes to fashion in 2025.
That’s why you have the prettiest woman in the room, wearing just as much makeup as the ugliest woman in the room.
Why didn’t Oliver ask Stance why they’re still using the old logo?
I could complain that this pitcher’s pants are NFL length, which is short for baseball, and that I wish he would get some blousing action. But frankly, if that’s the only bad issue that’s massively outweighed by showing off those beautiful sock stripes…yeah, complaint withdrawn. Who cares if my hot coffee is a couple of degrees off? I got hot coffee like I ordered, and it’s not iced.
Old man on porch here, but the real solution to this is to not have logos on socks and just go stripes or solids!
Also, for some reason I never really noticed until today that the Cardinals bird logo is giving a side eye. Between that and his beak shape he is suddenly reminding me of this guy:
link
Nice catch! I wondered if the Cardinals just have a backlog of club-issued socks with the old logo. If so, maybe when they reorder, the new batch of socks will have the correct logo.
Great thought, Jay! Perhaps, if the Cards do have a batch of leftovers, they’re using them up in spring training and their regular season socks will be fine.
And, if they’re still overwhelmed with a supply, they could sell them online to fans or have a giveaway at their remaining spring games. Doubtful that many would be bothered by the miniscule changes.
Great spot! My take is that they should correct this mistake going forward, because it is the right thing to do. However, due to the knit nature of the socks, except up really close it would be super hard to tell the difference. On TV or live, it would be impossible. I have no problem with using the old socks until a new batch is made. It would be wasteful to just destroy the incorrect ones when nobody will see the difference.
That logo at the top of the page… the bird is giving us a concerned side-eye.
I can’t stand the stance socks. They’re trying wayyyy too hard. Just throw some stripes on there and call it a day. No need to put logos or skylines or whatever else they put on them. It looks terrible, and in terms of merch sales, who’s actually buying these long MLB socks? If that’s their reasoning for all the extraneous nonsense.
One possible reason – overstock. Its possible they made a TON of these when they got the contract, and they are just cycling through the stock. Since the logo change was so minor, as opposed to a complete overhaul, coupled with only a handfull of players showing off the socks, its possible they were allowed to use their old stock up first.
I was thinking the same thing
I thought the same thing. I wonder how many players have worn this sock in the last 4 seasons, and how many the Cardinals and Stance have in inventory?
I miss stirrups. They have been few & far between for a while now, but it seems when Stance got the sock contract, they were all but eliminated (save for 2 or 3 MLB players every year).
100% agree!!!
Stance socks are awful, although these (Cardinals) are some of the least-awful IMO.
In general, there are too many small details, too much going on with them. They don’t need stripes *and* the monogram. Just have the stripes.
The socks should be part of the uniform, they shouldn’t distract from the rest of it.
I’m sure Stance has no perogative, especially if they have back stock. It’s not like any more than maybe 2 or 3 guys on their opening day roster will wear high cuffed pants (Donovan and Mikolas are the only locks for it and that go high cuffs), and it’s less likely the average fan will notice.
99.9% of the population wouldn’t notice or care.
That’s why this is peak UW, where we notice such things.
The team attached to Oliver’s story (nice catch, by the way!) has a significant place in my sports fandom. While I have long been more attached to the western Missouri-based team, the Cardinals were baseball’s champions for my birth year, 1967. And since today is my birthday, here are the major North American pro champions for ’67 with their final series/game opponents and a fun fact or two:
Baseball: St. Louis def. Boston, 4 games to 3, in the World Series, with series MVP Bob Gibson pitching three complete-game victories, allowing just 3 runs with 26 strikeouts, and hitting a solo homer in Game 7;
Football: NFL – Green Bay def. Dallas, 21-17 in “The Ice Bowl,” and AFL – Oakland def. Houston, 40-7 in relatively warmer, 47-degree conditions the same day in Oakland; and for the ’67 season’s second World Championship Game, Green Bay 33, Oakland 14 (the Packers had won the first to-be Super Bowl, 35-10 over Kansas City, seven weeks before my birth);
Basketball: Philadelphia 76ers def. San Francisco Warriors, 4 games to 2, in the NBA World Championship Series; no MVP in the finals until 1969, but the Warriors’ Rick Barry averaged 40.8 points in the series, with a high of 55, a low of 30, and two others in the 40s, while Wilt Chamberlain (28.5 rebounds) and Hal Greer (26.0 points) paced the 76ers; and
Hockey: Toronto Maple Leafs def. Montreal Canadiens, 4 games to 2, in the Stanley Cup finals, the last of the Original Six Era before the NHL doubled to 12 teams the next fall, and (sorry, Leafs fans) Toronto’s 13th and still most recent cup championship.
Happy Birthday, Terry!
Wish we were talking about stirrups…….