|
|
Post by crashtest on Jul 29, 2008 19:43:55 GMT -5
OK, if Tampa Bay can "retro" with a Senior League team's uni -jeesh- why in the world don't the Astros bring back the old smoking pistol Colt.45s jersey? It was far and away the best uni they ever wore. I think it is right up there with one of the best in major league history, up there with the birds on bat Cards and the tomahawk Braves. I had to do a double-take when I saw the Indians earlier this year because they have that same cream color home uni the .45s had. Fashions are starting to turn around.
Anyway, I guess the malt liquor and firearms companies might complain about infringement, but I think that was all just smoke and mirrors from Judge Roy so he could completely cut ties with the past and build up his AstroDomain. He went so far as to paint old Colt Stadium gray so it would not "distract" from aerial views of the Astrodome.
Whatever. It would be an awesome sight and it would be the sartorial hit of the baseball year. But they would have to do it right, no baggy shirts and pajama bottoms. No knee high short pants and tube socks. Nope, they would have to look just like 62-64, right down to the solid black shoes.
The other day, I saw an oriental SF Giants pitcher who looked just like Juan Marichal - uni wise at least - when he was on the mound. I'm talking stirrup socks and solid black shoes. All the Cardinals minor leaguers sport the candycane stirrup socks and they keep the look when they get called up. Hopefully, in the next 3 years, the "classic" look from the 50's to mid-60's will become retro-chic and the garbage look now will mercifully end.
|
|
|
|
Post by crashtest on Jul 29, 2008 20:11:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by crashtest on Jul 29, 2008 21:19:38 GMT -5
There was also a retro-game in Oakland in early May vs the Rangers to honor 40 years of baseball in Oakland. The Rangers wore the 1968 red motif road unis of the Washington Senators. Most guys wore the stirrup look although some still wore solid socks and some wore pajamas. The word uniform implies uniformity. Now, they are anything but.
So, if the Rangers can masquerade as the Senators for a day, surely we can be the Colt .45s. You know what, I'd bet that if they sold .45s hats and jerseys next to the Astros mud and blood in the gift shop at MMP, they would outsell the current stuff 2 to 1. Obviously, I wouldn't mind one bit if they changed back right now. MMP looks like it would fit more with an Old West theme anyway. How do Astros connect with any motif there? They'd make zillions in merchandise revenue. Maybe a new owner might come in with his own brand.
|
|
|
|
Post by crashtest on Jul 29, 2008 22:04:30 GMT -5
I looked at the archive of the Tampa Bay game - missed it then since I couldn't get mlb.tv to work until recently. That is not what they looked like. I guess the polyester was more form fitting. And the stripe down the pants didn't look the same. Like they say, you can't go home again. In 75, they wore black shoes. But later on, they switched to white shoes. That and the navy blue stirrup socks balanced the look better.
|
|
|
|
Post by 03flht2 on Jul 30, 2008 7:49:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by texiban001 on Jul 30, 2008 9:10:50 GMT -5
The Astros can't wear the Colt 45 uniforms because the Colt Firearms Company had an injunction against the Houston team using a trademarked name. That is another reason the name was changed to Astros.
This "retro" sh*t is getting out of hand. MLB and the NFL need to get a handle on all of these stupid uniforms. Why do the Astros need Home, Home on Sunday, Road, Road on Sunday, etc uniforms? It's ridiculous, as is the pants to the ankle look. Give me the traditional uni's any day.
|
|
|
|
Post by sadoug on Jul 30, 2008 9:36:31 GMT -5
As I( remember it...the Atlanta Braves started the "wild uniform" craze that came in during the late 70's
We played the Braves when they debuded the new uni's with the colored sleeves...When Doug Radar fist saw the braves comming out he said.." hey!, are we playing slow pitch today?"
|
|
|
|
Post by texiban001 on Jul 30, 2008 13:15:44 GMT -5
That sounds like Rader! That guy was funny! I am just tired of all of the marketing bullsh*t, plus the fact that most of the uniforms in MLB suck donkey balls anyway. The best thing I can say about most of them is at least they aren't hockey uniforms! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crashtest on Jul 30, 2008 21:19:13 GMT -5
The Astros can't wear the Colt 45 uniforms because the Colt Firearms Company had an injunction against the Houston team using a trademarked name. That is another reason the name was changed to Astros. This "retro" sh*t is getting out of hand. MLB and the NFL need to get a handle on all of these stupid uniforms. Why do the Astros need Home, Home on Sunday, Road, Road on Sunday, etc uniforms? It's ridiculous, as is the pants to the ankle look. Give me the traditional uni's any day. Actually, I don't think an injunction was ever issued. If you google it, all the references say that there was "a dispute". I think that meant that the Houston team would have to pay royalties to use the name. It would be a cold day in August in Houston before the Judge would do that. I think the truth is that the Judge used it as an excuse to change the name and put his complete control over the AstroDomain empire his envisioned. Unfortunately it all seems as outdated as Tomorrowland at Walt Disney World. In fact, there are several minor league and semi-pro teams that go as the Colt .45s with the smoking pistol. I've never seen the smoking pistol as a trademark Colt firearms. The font for "Colts" are similar, but the same could be said for the malt liquor font. Cooperstown Jersey made one - I bought one. There didn't seem to be an"injunction" against that. In the same vein, I think a throwback night with retro-uni's to honor an historical epoch of a team would not violate trademark issues. Granted, an entire name change would probably meet a legal challenge, especially with the mega-millions spent on merchandise. Bottom line, I think the quasi-legal problems are a bit of Houston urban legend. It has been repeated so much that it is just assumed to be true. I won't believe an "injunction" was ever issued until I see the court number. It is much closer to the truth that the Judge used it as an excuse to imprint his vision and to get out of parting with any moolah for royalities. Whatever, within 10 years to club was bankrupt, placed into receivorship and an entire roster of Hall of Famers and All-Stars were lost so we could wallow in the swill of flume rides at Astroworld. |
|
|
|
Post by crashtest on Jul 30, 2008 21:31:55 GMT -5
I looked at the archive of the Tampa Bay game - missed it then since I couldn't get mlb.tv to work until recently. That is not what they looked like. I guess the polyester was more form fitting. And the stripe down the pants didn't look the same. Like they say, you can't go home again. In 75, they wore black shoes. But later on, they switched to white shoes. That and the navy blue stirrup socks balanced the look better. Oh yeah, the pants had belts for crying out loud instead of spandex elastic waist bands. That is what ruined the look. I would love to see the Big Puma stuffed into a spandex polyester uni. Also, the numbers on the back went well up into the white of the shoulder cape whereas in the original they were confined to the top of the rainbow - after they got rid of that hideous white circle. Sorry to quibble, but facts are facts. |
|
|
|
Post by crashtest on Jul 30, 2008 21:34:47 GMT -5
Yeah, I saw that and it inspired my post. Nice article indeed. A few inaccuracies though. |
|
|
|
Post by crashtest on Jul 30, 2008 21:49:38 GMT -5
Yeah, I saw that and it inspired my post. Nice article indeed. A few inaccuracies though. For example: "Within a year or two, the white circle in the back disappeared and the lettering changed. Somewhere around this time, zippered jersies gave way to pullovers". The Rainbow was never, "zippered". It was ALWAYS a pullover. The "Orange Crush" jersey circa 1974 had a zippered version, but never the Rainbows www.checkoutmycards.com/Cards/Baseball/1974/Topps/660/Larry_Dierker |
|
|
|
Post by crashtest on Jul 30, 2008 22:01:27 GMT -5
As I( remember it...the Atlanta Braves started the "wild uniform" craze that came in during the late 70's We played the Braves when they debuded the new uni's with the colored sleeves...When Doug Radar fist saw the braves comming out he said.." hey!, are we playing slow pitch today?" It couldn't have been the "late 70's" because the Rainbows premiered in 1975. The dressed to the nines site shows the Braves soft ball motif to have been 1972. How they would ever have given up the awesome Tomahawk is beyond me - just shows the power of psychedelic drugs I guess. Sure, the Padres had pathetic uni's, but they never ruined a good one like the Braves did. |
|
|
|
Post by texiban001 on Jul 31, 2008 7:08:18 GMT -5
The absolute worst uniforms in history were the Pirates when they wore the short pants. God, I remember me and my stepdad laughing until we cried when they came out on the field in those things!
|
|
|
|
Post by crashtest on Aug 2, 2008 22:21:46 GMT -5
It was the Chicago White Sox that wore the short pants. The Pirates had the mix and match Black/Yellow/Yellow/Black going. When the tumblers came up Yellow/Yellow it looked like a banana plantation when they took the field. The pillbox hats looked a little stupid after a few years as well. The Phillies had a Burgundy/Burgundy atrocity that drew analogies to a certain feminine hygiene product. Of all the polyester 70's uni's, the Rainbows were in retrospect the best of the lot. They were the "classic" of the era.
|
|
