Mets Uniform History

[kevinmets]

I put this chart together and I want to run it by the fact checkers here

One thing I'm definitely not sure of: the year they added the orange button to the blue caps. I got 1995 off Wikipedia but I'd like to double check that.

(Also for my purposes, I really don't care about sleeve patch inconsistencies.)

[cmm]

Great job!

I think the orange button came about in 1997, the same year they introduced the milkman hats. It was orange in the Dave Mlicki game in '97:

But it was blue in this picture from Getty Images from the 7/14/96 doubleheader vs. Houston:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/51586685/AFP

[jrodsep]

The 1997 set (WITHOUT the milkman cap) was perfect. No black to be seen.

[the_fan]

My dream Mets set would be the original 62-77 homes with the 1993 roads and a blue alternate. The 82-84 one doesn't really do it for me. Of course it's pullover, and I'd much rather the script be orange with a white outline than vice-versa.

For the cap I prefer the orange crown, although the blue crown does have a certain simplistic beauty to it.

[TheFloridianLogoMan]

I put this chart together and I want to run it by the fact checkers here

One thing I'm definitely not sure of: the year they added the orange button to the blue caps. I got 1995 off Wikipedia but I'd like to double check that.

(Also for my purposes, I really don't care about sleeve patch inconsistencies.)

I know one thing for sure.....the v-neck on the racing strip roads from '82-'86 is supposed to be grey.

[Bouj]

That looks pretty accurate. Henderson points out in his guide that the Mets are one of the hardest teams to track, because they are always making minor changes or adding & subtracting elements.

[Swish41Fan]

I think the best look for the Mets is when they wear the black. May not be traditional or whatever but they look very nice.

[Gothamite]

Can't agree. The black muddies all the wordmarks, making them harder to read. From an æsthetic perspective, the Mets would have been better off starting from scratch rather than lazily slapping black accents on to an established set.

The 1997 set (WITHOUT the milkman cap) was perfect. No black to be seen.

1997 was the best uniform year for the Mets, including the white caps. Especially the white caps.

[TruColor]

I can address the colors...

Original color palette:

Question: were the original home uniforms a Cream/Off-White? If so, I'll need to address it.

In 1995, both the Blue and Orange were modified, and the BP uniforms began to incorporate Gray:

In 1998, Black was added:

In 1999, the Gray that was used for the BP uniforms was dropped.

And in 2010, the Flannel home alternate uniforms were introduced.

Hope this helps...let me know if anyone has any questions or corrections to my findings.

[SmoothieX]

Those 93 road unis were only around for a year, but are really underrated in my book.

[DarthBrett]

The Mets added the orange button onto the cap starting with the 1997 season. Here's a pic from Jul '96. Ordonez definitely has a blue button on top in this shot.

and another shot of Isringhausen

and another shot of Paul Wilson

And finally a shot of the batting helmet with Gilkey and Lance Johnson. You can see the 'button' painted on is white and not orange yet.

[Cuse2000]

In 1995, both the Blue and Orange were modified, and the BP uniforms began to incorporate Gray:

Hope this helps...let me know if anyone has any questions or corrections to my findings.

Actually, the Mets began using Gray on Spring Training/BP jerseys when they went to the block "New York" wordmark on the road jersys in 1988.

[TruColor]

Actually, the Mets began using Gray on Spring Training/BP jerseys when they went to the block "New York" wordmark on the road jersys in 1988.

OK - thanks for the info.

[NJTank]

I think the 1987 road uniform was underrated I still don't know why they went to the ugly block letter roads in 1988.

[Magnum]

Can't agree. The black muddies all the wordmarks, making them harder to read. From an æsthetic perspective, the Mets would have been better off starting from scratch rather than lazily slapping black accents on to an established set.

The 1997 set (WITHOUT the milkman cap) was perfect. No black to be seen.

1997 was the best uniform year for the Mets, including the white caps. Especially the white caps.

You know, I'd have to agree with you on the 97 jersey. To me, the Mets look better without pinstripes.

[kestrel79]

No black please. Just look at the workmark from a distance on the image from the op. It's very muddy and hard to read with the black in there.

Get rid of the black, blue alternate for road, orange alt for home

[jrodsep]

Can't agree. The black muddies all the wordmarks, making them harder to read. From an æsthetic perspective, the Mets would have been better off starting from scratch rather than lazily slapping black accents on to an established set.

The 1997 set (WITHOUT the milkman cap) was perfect. No black to be seen.

1997 was the best uniform year for the Mets, including the white caps. Especially the white caps.

You know, I'd have to agree with you on the 97 jersey. To me, the Mets look better without pinstripes.

I also think they look better WITHOUT the pinstripes it separates them the Yankees. But I wouldn't mind having the cream colored pinstripes as a home alternate and a blue with orange piping road alternate.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

As far as which Met uni set was perfect, I'd nominate the 1964-1973 sets (home and road). (Why 1964 and not 1962? See below.) They ruined the road set in 1974 when they put "Mets" on the front instead of "New York"; but the home jersey remained perfect until 1977.

The 1995-1997 set was pretty close, as close as you can get, really; but with two differences:

1) player names on the back

2) the road jersey no longer had varsity numbers

I know that the regular block numbers now matched the home set; but the varsity numbers looked beautiful with the road uni:

(Aside: I'd call the 1973 Series, along with the 1993 Series, the best-looking uni Series ever, apart from the 1977, 1978, and 1981 Yankee-Dodger matchups.)

As far as your graphic, the only other thing that you might want to mention would be the front number, which the Mets added in 1964. This really dramatically changed the look of the jersey for the better.

Now a question to you and to everyone else about something involving the Mets' unis which has been occupying me lately: how about the belts? I recently came across this photo of Willie Mays:

He is wearing a blue belt. Looks great, sure. But, it struck me that I had never seen another picture of a Met wearing a blue belt, only black. I then looked through over a hundred pictures, and didn't find another example -- until I saw the Dykstra-Gooden-Strawberry shot above, in which only Gooden is wearing a blue belt.

My conclusion, based on my research, is that the team never officially had blue belts, always black. But, some guys occasionally slipped them in there, much as some Mets today wear non-standard orange undershirts. Is there anyone else who has an opinion on this?

(P.S. - My brother is Mike Cesarano, the compiler of the information on the Mets' unis at The Ultimate Mets Database. I am Ferdinand Cesarano.)

[Gothamite]

As far as your graphic, the only other thing that you might want to mention would be the front number, which the Mets added in 1964. This really dramatically changed the look of the jersey for the better.

That's a great point - the numbers should definitely be on there.

[DarthBrett]

I don't see how that shot of Dykstra-Gooden-Strawberry even shows they are wearing black belts. Blue belts are usually hidden in the shadow of the jersey and can appear to look black. Even shots on a cloudy day can make blue or dark blue belts appear to be black. Full sun is usually the only clear-cut way to see the color of a belt on the uni. I can't find any pics of a Met wearing a black belt conclusively being fully illuminated. Every conclusive shot in full sun they always are blue. Look at old pics of the Mets from the 60's and sometimes they look like they're script or socks are black, but they are not.