teenchy

Members
  • Content Count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Prospect

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Is it me or does South Carolina change their uniforms almost every season?
  2. My personal bias, but original AL Senators mid-late 1950s: I also liked the Reds' early 1940's stirrups that were black (navy?) over red.
  3. One of my first posts here was a request for this logo: I'm not a big Tigers fan but I'm happy to see its comeback - will definitely want a t-shirt with the 'kitten' on it.
  4. Maybe not sleeve stripes but bands at the ends of the sleeves. I won't hotlink to SSUR but there's a pic there: http://www.ssur.org/news/items/2005/200504...ersey75A-lg.jpg Agreed that there's no similarity beyond both using red, black and white - well, that and the fact that they are both football jerseys with holes for the heads and arms, etc...
  5. I'm with you. Besides, I like the nickname "Nasty Nats," which was around even before one of B-W's fellow bloggers took it for his site.
  6. Why? Other than the name "Senators" or an obviously partisan name, which would both have adverse effects on local attendance, the name isn't going to make a difference to the local fan base. Just as many DC-area baseball fans will come to the ballpark to watch the Washington Muddy Rockfish as to watch the Washington Nationals. It's about the baseball, not the team name. But if the choice of a name can help your efforts to expand your ticket sales by 5 percent, then that's a margin worth considering when you choose the team name. It's all a moot point, though. The name will either be Nationals or Senators, because there are is a cohort of childish baby-boomers out there who labor under the delusion that there are a lot of sentimental Senators fans just itching for the return of the Senators. Truth is, there never were many Senators fans here, and when you apply normal actuarial models of relocation and death to the few tens of thousands of actual Senators fans left in the region in 1971, you find that there can be no more than a couple of thousand die-hard Senators fans left. There are, meanwhile, many more thousands of potential fans in DC itself who will be turned off by the Senators name. If you can avoid creating a political controversy with your team name, you should. But Bud Selig thinks everything was perfect in 1957, so he'll probably give the organization much encouragement to choose the Senators name as a proxy for his own thwarted desire to name Milwaukee's team the Braves. B-W, you make some good points but some slightly hurtful ones as well. I say that because I'd consider myself among those "couple of thousand die-hard Senators fans left," even though I'd yet to go through puberty when Bob Short moved the expansion club. (Technically, that either makes me not a boomer or puts me at the very end of the boom.) So many people seem to think that there is nothing or nobody worth celebrating out of Washington's 20th-century baseball past. Granted there is virtually no one living who can remember a World Series win 82 years ago, and there's only one survivor left from the last pennant winner 73 years ago. The original AL franchise had its share of star players even when the team as a whole stunk (not unlike the current NL franchise). That can't be said so much for the expansion AL franchise (quick, name a Senators All-Star besides Frank Howard) but, honestly, that's a function of what ownership invested in the team and of the lack of an expansion draft in 1961. The expansion Senators had to make do mostly with castoffs, has-beens and never-will-bes (gee, again not unlike the current NL franchise). Of course there's the distinction between being lovable losers (the Cubs have played that to the hilt; witness all the Ernie Banks and Ron Santo love while the team stunk) and just being losers; it's all in the spin. When a franchise makes no effort to put a winning team on the field - and, for that matter, the franchise's status and stability is in doubt - fans stay away from the ballpark. Look at last night's (4/24) RFK attendance vs. the Reds. The media is trying to make a big deal out of the lowest RFK turnout since relocation, but come on for Pete's sake: people are tired of MLB's ownership mambo crap. I guess I should just get to the point and say that there's room in the new Nats' identity to give nods to Washington's baseball past. Retro and nostalgia sell - ever been to Mitchell&Ness in Philly? - so a script "W" on a ballcap shouldn't get people's panties in a wad. Personally I'm fine with it (especially the navy road cap) and I'm fine with the Nationals nickname; it's a good tie between the baseball past and present. I'm even okay with the uniforms. I actually hope the owners keep the name though I expect they'll come up with somthing inane like the DC Momentum.
  7. And what's the problem with that? Are Georgia's uniforms somehow flawed in comparison?
  8. The 1905 AL Washington Nats never put their nick on their jerseys. Indeed the only nickname that this AL franchise used on its jerseys were "Senators". That 1905 in those patches always stinks for me. Mark Okkonen's Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century (the basis for the Baseball Hall of Fame's Dressed to the Nines) shows the "NATIONALS" lettering on the home uniforms for 1905-06. I'll copy the URLs in the event that Cooperstown won't allow hotlinking: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits..._washington.gif http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits..._washington.gif Ball-Wonk: I'd be more than happy to share my sources. I referenced Sporting Life and Shirley Povich's The Washington Senators (Putnam, 1954). Another excellent source on early Washington baseball history is Henry Thomas' bio of Walter Johnson (his grandfather): http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080329433...glance&n=283155 Thomas' book is very well researched and contains extensive footnotes and bibliography. There are amazon.com critiques about the book being perhaps too academic as a result, which does not detract from the amount of information available in the book. It may well be the case that both "Nationals" and "Senators" were used for the 1901 AL franchise but I've only seen the latter on microfilm of the Evening Star. I've done a lot of research on both Washington AL franchises as well as their minor league systems. I'll PM you to continue the conversation.
  9. Ball-Wonk, a minor adjustment is in order. The first Washington AL franchise used the nickname "Senators" from 1901-04. When Thomas Noyes, part of the Washington Evening Star newspaper's controlling family and a chief investor in the franchise, took over as club president in 1905, he supposedly dictated the change to "Nationals." The April 1, 1905 issue of Sporting Life reported that "a group of newspaper men" came up with the "Nationals" nickname. It's more than likely that Noyes and/or other Evening Star staffers were involved. However, in his famous Putnam series book on that franchise, the late Shirley Povich stated that the nickname "Nationals" was the result chosen from a fan poll taken by the ownership group prior to the start of the 1905 season. As Povich wrote and we all know, the official nickname change did not deter the majority of fans and sportswriters around the country from continuing to refer to the team as the "Senators." In any event, 1905 was the season in which the nickname "Nationals" was first applied to the first Washington AL franchise.
  10. Ditto. I don't live far from Trenton, NJ so I might be able to pick one up at the Trenton Thunder's stadium store. Will probably spring for the road cap.
  11. teenchy

    Idaho Spuds

    the OP? Sorry. OP = Olympic Peninsula. Specifically, in a little town called (I'm not making this up) Sappho, on US 101.
  12. teenchy

    Idaho Spuds

    So you've already got corporate sponsorship? I ate one of those on a trip to the OP in WA. Very strange.
  13. I'd just like to know what I need to do to get better at this. I'm not sure whether it's an MS Paint issue; my inability to translate what I'm trying to convey into graphic form (as opposed to describing it in words); the simple fact that what I find appealing in a design is completely different that what today's majority of people find appealing in a design; some combination of those factors; or something else I'm missing. To use the example of my submission for this contest, I was going for sort of a Brooklyn Dodgers tribute to include the use of a satin uniform for night games. I tend to think New York teams should use simple but bold designs. To guide myself I created a backstory in my mind that the team could have developed a national "underground" fan base in the Cuban-American community and so played up the use of Cuban imagery and colors. Thoughts?
  14. ...nnnnnah I kinda like mine the way it is. To be honest, the way you used the sword looks pretty cheesy. Thanks for the suggestion though. Oh, well, thanks. <--- runs away and hides, realizing his only challenge win was a fluke
  15. I like that a lot. Seeing the Claymores reminded me of the first concept I ever tried (Furman, for the Division I-AA competition). I used the sword as both the helmet stripe (shades of the 1960s' Redskins) and extended it to form the entire pants stripe. My execution must have left something to be desired as it received no votes. (Of course, it may also have been the use of MS Paint, the scale of the logo, the rest of the helmet, my rush job leaving off most of the shoulder numbers, or the fact that the unis were otherwise plain.) Might it be something you'd want to play with in your concept?