Gothamite

Very cool, but it's a little odd to find a 100 year-old ring in such perfect condition.

Barry Halper have his hands on that one, too?

Yikes.

Where did SI dig up that ring?

Seeing the 1928 Grey Cup ring (above) surprised me, I would not have thought they would have given out Grey Cup rings that far back. I looked back through this thread, and the only one that is older was a 1927 New York Yankees ring (sadly the picture no long posts. I should also note that a 1932 Yankees ring was mislabeled as 1923). This got me thinking, when were championship rings first given out? What is the oldest Championship ring out there?

The oldest one I know of is the 1922 New York Giants:

1965 PACKERS CHAMPIONSHIP RING

Now where did you find that?

Here are the three 1996 rings (players, staff, and shareholders):

Partial of a sketch of Auburn's National Championship ring.

reminds me of the pats super bowl ring.

Yeah, I though of that too, but couldn't remember the team or year. Just remembered something like it.

You're right - looks suspiciously like the Lombardi Trophy.

The Packers have put their World Championship rings on hold until they can get player input. And we'll have to wait longer than that to see what the shareholder rings will look like.

And, since the Brewers were mentioned, that's exactly what they did with theirs.

To go with the Brewers talk on the last page, here's an unpopular opinion:

I actually prefer their current scheme to the old blue and athletic gold. And I like their uniforms and logos, generally. They look better now than they ever have in their history, I'd say.

You're the guy!

I'm with you on those Broncos throwbacks. Sheer beauty, the best they've ever worn.

My own heresy is about the Packers' untouchable uniforms. I was terribly disappointed that the rumored early 1990s switch-to-navy never happened, and I still wish that Ron Wolf had the guts to pull the trigger on his redesign in 1994.

It's not too late, Green Bay. The Rodgers era is just beginning.

I think it would be more confusing for the Big Ten to change its name. They've had the same name for nearly a century. You can't buy that kind of brand equity.

Even casual fans knows what the Big Ten is, but I think very few know (or care) that they have had eleven teams for the past twenty years. Adding another (or even a couple more) won't really change that.

Wow... I thought I'd already seen every uniform the Brewers ever wore. Even though Tuscan lettering would look generic for most teams, I wish the Brewers had gone with it. It looks like something a beer company would use without being a thinly-veiled ad for a particular brand ::cough::Miller::cough::

I know, I know, we hear that all the time, but I just don't see it. If anything, the current Brewers uniforms evoke the Coors or Schlitz scripts, sharing very little design with Miller.

'Bout time. Three pages before somebody posted that?

I like this one, the intended 1970 Brewers uniforms (left).

They only had a week to put their uniforms together, and by Opening Day they were wearing the uniform on the right. Guess taking the Pilots' trim off the sleeves was too much.

The neck and sleeve piping were added when the Brewers made their first uniform tweaks a couple years later:

Yeah, the Big Ten has wanted Notre Dame for a long time. I understand why - seems like a great fit.

I think you are off base on a couple points here. First off, I don't know how much ANY New York team has a foothold in the NYC market. From what I understand, Penn State is just as big in the city, if not bigger than Rutgers and Syracuse. It is my opinion that people from New Jersey think Rutgers is the New York team, but that is just wishful thinking.

I can confirm this - Rutgers has some footprint in the market, but that's very recent. Before 2006, I doubt any New Yorkers could have told you where Rutgers is (and to this day, I doubt that many could tell you it's a public school). Syracuse has been trying like heck to get in with ad campaign claiming they're NYC's local college. I don't think either claim is very strong at this moment. NYC is unusual, a large city without any real hometown college football program.

I think the only claim Penn State has on the city is their occasional appearances on YES (the Yankees' network), which extends into Pennsylvania. For what it's worth, Notre Dame has a presence on YES as well.

Hmm. I found two:

I'm guessing that the top one is a souvenir ring and the bottom one is the real deal? Top one doesn't have any personalization.

Now that NFL has standardized the Super Bowl logo, it wouldn't shock me if they wanted to take over the ring production from the teams and start issuing standardized rings, so from now on, every champion will receive the same one. It's not likely, but again, it wouldn't shock me.

I think it's very unlikely, because the rings just aren't important enough to the NFL's branding. Who but hardcore fans even know what the rings look like?

At least with the trophies, you can say that they're going to start promoting them more, make them part of the public perception of the conference championship games. But in an atmosphere of streamlining, of making the Lombardi Trophy front and center in the Super Bowl brand, I'd doubt that the NFL's marketing department is interested in muddying the Super Bowl waters by promoting another prize for the winners.

Getting back to league championships, this 1982 Brewers ring came up for auction last year. First one I've ever seen.

You're right - strange.

2001 New York Yankees AL Championship

Umm the Yankees def didn't win 125 games in 2001. That ring must be from 1998.

Just an FYI, I'm fairly certain this is just a prototype 1998 ring, its got nothing to do with 2001 anyway.

True enough.

Here are the four rings Jeter won before last year - 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 (that's the Yanks' 1923 ring in the upper right):

Personally, I prefer having the team logo against a contrasting background - diamonds for one, colored stones for the other.

The logo seems kind of pointless if you can't see it from any distance over three feet.

Is it just me or do the World Series Championship rings seem many grades lower than other sports like the NBA, NHL, and NFL?

I can't agree. That 2009 Yankee ring is worlds better than that of the 2008-2009 Penguins, to pick just one.

Whose idea was it to put other teams' logos on it? Has that ever been done before in any sport?

Yes - as far back as 1987.

Pretty common to put the other team's name on a ring, with the game or series score. Less common, although not unheard of, to also use logos.

What's interesting to me is that they list all the teams they beat in the postseason. The only thing I can think of close to that is the 1969 Jets, who listed the result of both championship games - the AFL championship over the Raiders and the World championship over the Colts:

Other than the screen printing, I couldn't disagree with you more. The skin-tight leotard look is awful. Give me real sleeves any day.

Kurt Warner with the Giants

But which Ram uniform will he be considered a legend in?

or

Gotta be the first - he won a Super Bowl in it.

In a decade, I think we'll largely forget that he wore the modified uniform.

Yeah, well, the NFL hasn't ever really pretended that its throwbacks were authentic, only that it's what the teams would wear today if they hadn't changed their uniform design.

Unlike baseball, which sometimes uses period cuts and materials, the NFL just takes old designs and drops them on the modern template.

But unlike baseball, wearing authentic period garb in an NFL game is liable to get a player killed, or at the very least put in a huge competitive disadvantage.

True - I wasn't trying to place a value judgment on it, only meant it as a statement of fact.

NFL throwbacks are inherently modern, so there doesn't seem to be any reason not to use the C patch (other than the arguments against C patches in general).

Yeah, well, the NFL hasn't ever really pretended that its throwbacks were authentic, only that it's what the teams would wear today if they hadn't changed their uniform design.

Unlike baseball, which sometimes uses period cuts and materials, the NFL just takes old designs and drops them on the modern template.