Then I'm thinking of the 61-66 jerseys seen previously in this thread, except where gray is, that would be replaced with black.Originally Posted by Cyclone792
Sorry Randy.
Then I'm thinking of the 61-66 jerseys seen previously in this thread, except where gray is, that would be replaced with black.
Sorry Randy.
Some people play baseball. Baseball plays Jay Bruce.
I believe that the black is going, period, and if it isn't, I will be extremely dissapointed. That has been the krux of the whole change. I don't believe that the cap will change, with regard to the wishbone "c" but I would be terribly surprised if there is any black in the new uniforms. The current uniforms are nearly a replica of the '61-'66 duds, with the major difference being the use of black instead of navy, the caps, and the use of the black sleeves on the road.
I would be interested to know who the "retailer" that cyclone talked to was. If it was Koch's Sporting Goods, I would probably give the rumor a lot more credence. They work very closely with the Reds. When I was in Cincinnati in August, one of the guys at Koch's told me that black was going to be totally eliminated, and that the staple red cap was going to return. Take that for what it is worth.
Best home uni ever.
We'll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective ~ Kurt Vonnegut
Best road uni ever.
We'll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective ~ Kurt Vonnegut
RFS62, I am in total agreement with that, and if I were "King" I would make those uniforms current. That road uni, with the grey flannel cap (Cap has to be grey flannel and yes, they still make 'em) was great, right down to the name below the number on that wonderful vest, and the thin red pinstripe on the pants. Excellent.
That would keep the tradition of the vest and the wonderfully simple but majestic home whites. I would love that combination.
We definitely need to hook up sometime. The post by Cyclone now has me concerned. I would also be interested to know who the retailer is. Unless it is Koch's, I wouldn't think they'd be privy to any special inside info, but I could be wrong.
I've heard so many stories in the past few months that I don't know what to believe at this point. Is it December 1 yet?
Help stamp out, eliminate, and do away with redundancy.
BTW, I'm all for doing away with the vest completely if they aren't going to do it right. The vests you see throughout baseball look to me like a standard jersey in which they just didn't sew on the sleeves. A real vest is cut much deeper and looks infinitely better. I've never liked the look of the modern vests.
We'll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective ~ Kurt Vonnegut
I was going to respond to say I like the uniforms you just posted, with pretty much this exact addendum. I really do think part of the problem with the modern vests is that they rarely fit well...and I never could put my finger on the rest of the problem with them and I think you just nailed it.
Uniforms all across baseball go through stages, and I personally think that the current one is getting a little stale (with the exception of a few teams, most of whom have very classic, timeless uniforms). The uniforms the players are wearing now no longer look fresh, they look very late 90s to me. If the Reds could actually lead a trend here I would fall over with delight -- bring back some of these classic elements with maybe something new. I'd rather see them be plainer than they are. Their uniforms now, almost all of them, are too busy.
On a side note, I noticed this week that the Padres uniforms (at least the away ones) are pretty simple and nice. They looked very good, I have to say.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
RFS62 has maintained this idea about the vests from the very beginning of the "vest debate" and he is right on the mark. I have not been a proponent of black in the uniforms, but that '61-'66 uniform had the players' last name in black, below the number. It was different and looked pretty good.
In the late 60's and early 70's, the Orioles used black letters for the player names above the orange on black numbers on the backs of their uniforms. I believe the Braves have done the same thing on their current uniforms. I think it is a very distinctive touch and a nice look.
...sorry, I'm sort of a lurker here, but another board I lurk at, Chris Creamer's Sports Logos (sportslogos.net) had these, as well as the new Arizona Diamondbacks set:
This is sort of a weird view of everything...I guess you have to use your imagination a bit. But it looks like no more black hats, a lot less black in general, sweet new numbers, and hey! Its the running man! I know I like it.
So here these are for more discussion...I'm gonna put myself down as a fan of them, and hope to see them bring in plenty of pennants.
If that is it, I'm extremely dissapointed. If this isn't the real thing, I wouldn't want to be the person that put this together, using MLB trademarks. Surprised that Creamer can get his hands on this before the Reds put out anything.
By the way, I looked on the Creamer site and couldn't find any of this. What section is it in?
I will reserve judgment until i see the uniforms but I think im a fan of this. I like it.
What's different?
If that's the Running Man I like (and my eyes hurt) I'm thrilled.
I'll Reserve judgement until they are unveiled.
Looks like no more vests if that's the case. There are jersey shirt emblems.
Last edited by Heath; 09-21-2006 at 09:39 PM.
Some people play baseball. Baseball plays Jay Bruce.
If those are real, I'm THRILLED so far...I hate the all-black logo, but that lettering makes me giddy, and that is OLD-SCHOOL, BATCRAP CRAZY Mr. Red I see and I am hugely in favor of his return.
That lettering is just gorgeous. Is that comparable to any other lettering in Reds history?
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
