SiddFinch

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Prospect
  1. Yea the straight N bar was a a little wiggly at times... The bottom of the Y being higher then the bottom(s) of the N is what always jumps out to my eyes as the main difference from the current cap logo.
  2. For SF Giants... 4th from top is all black and one of these two logos....you are missing one of them. I think you have this one, 1958-1976 ...and are missing this one 1983-1993. Check out the crown and that bad boy!
  3. Nice work comrade. I'll throw some logo variations at you that often slip under the radar. Yankees "field logo" variant mid 1950's to mid 1960s's 60's. Its very close to the logo behind home plate at Yankee Stadium which is used for TV graphics. IMO cleaner and more symmetrical than the current distorted version. a Decent New Era reproduction...
  4. If these are the same as those I've seen in person at the local Lids, they have under visors that match the bill color. I need the grey under visor to muster anything resembling nostalgia for the 90's. The raised embroidery is really getting extreme on these. That thick 3D "M" logo halfway down has nothing to do with the Milwaukee Braves whose logo was often and patch. And don't event get me started on the masquerading Bakersfield Dodgers cap.
  5. SiddFinch

    MLB 2009

    Hate to be nothing but a critic, so here's my Montreal inspired road jersey done in early 2007 (hence ex- Nat Cordero #32)) I don't have a template for pants - they would have a leg stripe matching the sleeve trim with red socks. The wordmark is mine - the DC logo, name and number fonts are not. I think the Curly W is hideous so I had no interest in forcing it into a wordmark. Naturally I much prefer mine over the team version
  6. SiddFinch

    MLB 2009

    hey I post here once in a blue moon...this Nationals road jersey is one of the most non-cohesive "designs" if you can call it that I can remember. Its a bunch of elements that don't go together, which seems to be the overall theme they are going for with their uniform identity and team. The road script looks absolutely scrawny on Milledge who is not a huge guy. How's it gonna look on a 6'4" 250 lb'er wearing a size 54-56? You can barely see the blue outline - proof that its harder than it looks to reverse engineer a wordmark around a cap logo that's a distorted version of a nearly 50 year old cap logo that wasn't that great in the first place. The front numbers are way too big in proportion. The "bevel" font without the bevel is a joke. Four color numbers on back? Please. Gold on the enormous sleeve logo and back numbers but nowhere else looks ridiculous. If I saw this uniform on eBay, I'd think it was a badly attributed homemade fake. I'm not even gonna waste my time on the stars and stripes atrocity.
  7. What I'm finding on my cap, the sweatband will shrink a bit, but the crown will not shrink or flex at all even after removing the buckram and soaking it.
  8. aaah crap, I cracked the bill on this has hat trying to curve it. These are junk.
  9. I picked a Nats up at Lids yesterday, in my ususal size. I like that the Poly looks less coarse, and the raised embroidery logo is thankfully not so hyper-raised as my '05 Nats. I ran it through my usual drill - cut out buckram soak with cold water - but instead of wearing it, I let it hang dry. The crown even sans buckram held its absurd stiff faux bucket shape, but there was definitely some shrinkage in the perimeter - it fits tighter now. So "shrink resistant" they may be, but not shrink proof. As one who prefers the low crown or failing that buying oversize and shrinking the crown, these are of no use to me. Also very hard to curve the bill evenly. I looked at several and the QC looked much better versus past years.
  10. I do not understand this complaint becuase the bills on my USA 5950's are so thick as to be comical, and retain extreme bends much better than hats I own with thinner bills like EFF. I wear a 7 1/2. I buy the hat, cut out the crown reinforcement, wet the cap from the outside, wear it for a while, and I get a great old school lower profile hat with a full size bill. I can't believe they would stop making 5950's completely because they do make a fairly popular Cooperstown line. I don't see folks buying a Brooklyn Dodgers mesh Cool Flo Cooperstown hat.
  11. At one point the Cooperstown Collection had the correct Brooklyn Logo and the pre-1940 Giants logo. The blue Dodgers hat is a Mitchell and Ness from late 90's(?). The other two are Roman Pro hats from the early 90's.
  12. Nothing I said is nonsense. Its easy to just say a product stinks and it should be better, and ignore the larger business dynamics at work. How many great companies like Roman Pro have come and gone, not because their products were bad, but because the business model didn't work? I am just trying to inject some manufacturing based perspective which no one else here is doing. Don't mistake me - I think New Era sucks as much as the next guy. I have heard from a notable retailer that they simply do not have the capacity to make as many hats as the market demands, and that is why you get the variable quality. Twins Enterprises is really not a direct competitor to New Era because they make garment washed caps to fit a niche market. Plus they do not have nearly the name recognition as New Era (their logo is not plastered in every MLB dugout) so they have to make a better quality cap. Again, that doesn't make it right, but it is not nonsense.
  13. Here is what really gets me with CBC illustrated in one hat on eBay. This is their dubiously named "1932" Brooklyn Dodgers model. Dark royal with a very light blue bill is a complete historical inaccuracy and never existed as an on-field cap - it is based on errors in the first Okkonen book from nearly 20 years ago. The logo is a misshapen farce of an attempt at a Brooklyn logo when viewed next to any one of a few hundred photos I have. I called them when I first saw this model on their website and eBay a while back - they swear the colors and logo are correct , they have photographic proof, blah, blah, blah, they know all...
  14. First, please explain your knowledge of hat manufacturing, the associated costs, and related quality control issues. Second, please identify a "decent company" which you believe has good quality control. I don't think New Era is any different than the vast majority of the manufacturers across all industries. There is no reason for them to improve their quality when 98% or more of their customers accept it happily. I don't endorse this, but it is a fact. I see players on the field wearing 5950's with the MLB logo on back sewn on crooked and the logos off-center. If MLB accepts it, what weight can one lone customer carry with them?
  15. It is oversimplication to say, the quality control should just be better. Consider how many hats New Era must make each day just to to keep the shelves of every MLB team store, Dicks, Modells, Sports Autority, Lids, HatWorld, Champs, and every other god awful mall store in America alone fully stocked. To mass produce hats in that volume and have the quality grade at 95 of 100 would require a huge investment in infrastructure and manpower, and the price per hat would probably triple. In another life I worked in music intrument retail and this maxim was true: price increases exponentially as quality goes up. For $600 you got a solid guitar, and if you picked up 6 of the same model, the quality grade would vary from 70-85 out of 100. To get that extra 10% better quality, the price jumped to $1200. To get that 95 grade across the aboard without cherry picking one from a half dozen, the price nearly doubled again to $2000.