MLB: who's worn essentially their same uniform the longest?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The Braves also returned to a previous design, but it doesn't change that they moved away from that design.

 

That's true. But the Braves' period away from the classic design was much longer, 24 years as compared to the Red Sox' 11 years. (Phil Niekro, for all his years as a Brave, wore the tomahawk in exactly one game: his 1987 finale.)  

 

And, when the Braves' classic design returned, there were significant changes: the tomahawk was changed from blue to red; and the front number was dropped. The Red Sox brought the classic uniform back intact.

 

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

It also looks like they dropped the placket piping even before the pullover era.  I'd say that's a critical part of their current identity, and would therefore constitute a break even if the pullovers never happened.

 

Right. I mentioned that:

 

6 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

In 1968 they removed the piping, and the uniform stayed like that through 1971; then in 1972 they went nuts and brought in the pullover jerseys and beltless pants.

 

Of course, the Red Sox are not exactly like the Tigers or the Cardinals, each of which made a move away from its classic design for a single season: the Tigers dropped the Old English D in 1960; the Cardinals dropped the birds-on-bat in 1956.

 

  

 

So that is why I call the Red Sox a special case. I would probably ignore the Tigers' one-season alteration and date their design to 1934; but I wouldn't actually date the Red Sox' design continuously to 1936. I would, however, give the Red Sox a "Harvey Haddix asterisk", the way Haddix used to be included in the list of no-hitters even though, strictly speaking, he didn't belong there.

[MilSox]

I honestly don't see much to debate about BBTV's original list. The rationale he laid put seems to include all the nuances that I would.

[63Bulldogs63]

On 6/29/2019 at 11:44 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Pirates don't count because in the late 90s their wordmark was flat on top and dramatically arched, creating a totally different look than the normal vertical arch they've worn since.  Also, their sleeveless was full time, not an alt, so the switch to sleeves also counts as a change.

 

 

So... this is going to be controversial, but I'm going to count it as a continuous look.  I know I just said that the Pirates change in arch represented an actual change, but I think in this case it was much less dramatic and didn't change the look significantly enough count.  

 

 

Fair enough.  I don't think the front numbers are as significant to them as they are (were) to the Dodgers, so I'll add them to the list.

 

 

I'm not going to count that tweak, because like I stated above, the "feel" of the uniform didn't change... at least to me.

 

I also don't hold the NOB or dropping of NOB as a change.  If i did, then I'd have to exclude the Cubs from the list, which just feels wrong.

 

If you dont consider the 94-99 and the 00-present look a change because the "feel" of the uniform is the "same" then you might as well go back to the 83 -93 look cause the feel is basically the same.

 

But really the giants "full house " look is different from the final years at the stick look, which is different from the pac bell downtown stadium look.

 

Also I haven't read this whole thread so sorry if this has been addressed.

[BBTV]

Is 00 when they went to cream? If yes, then I take it back and will count 00 as the start of a new uni-era for them. The triple threat of arch difference, NOB removal, and base color change is enough for me to consider it a change, since the “overall look” was changed to reflect a true throwback uniform rather than a modern uniform with a throwback (or fauxback) word mark. Y’all convinced me. 

[8BW14]

You know I think the Cardinals ‘56 uniforms were a pretty sharp look in a vacuum, but they can never move away form the birds on the bat. I especially love the slugger bird patch and I’d like to see them bring a modern one to their current uniforms

[Gothamite]

Not their uniforms, which are busy enough.  But jackets, to be sure. 

[SFGiants58]

16 hours ago, 8BW14 said:

You know I think the Cardinals ‘56 uniforms were a pretty sharp look in a vacuum, but they can never move away form the birds on the bat. I especially love the slugger bird patch and I’d like to see them bring a modern one to their current uniforms

 

Well, I have made an updated Sluggerbird (inspired by @Htown1141) in the ‘98 style:

 

 

It’d be perfect for the jackets or a BP cap (better than the bird-on-bat).

 

I’d also like to take this opportunity to describe how the 1956 Cardinals forever changed the aesthetics of the franchise.

 

This was the 1955 uniform set:

 

Note how the uniform uses the 1940-55 cap, serif font for the “Cardinals” part, and thick placket trim. Now look at what 1956 introduced:

 

 

Note the all-navy caps (with white outline on the insignia), cursive wordmarks, and no sleeve/placket trim. This set also had navy socks (with three white stripes featuring red outlines) on the road, but that died off after 1956.

 

When one looks at the 1957 design (after unpopular GM Frank Lane found a way to “lighten” the birds-on-bat mark - a Sharks-like move of theirs), one can see the influences of 1956 with the lack of trim, cursive, and cap logo.

 

 

This has been the basis of every Cardinals uniform since and it would’ve been impossible without what happened in 1956.

[BBTV]

To me, adding all the trim that comes along with the pullovers changes that classic look.  The classic BoB look really out of place on this pullover sans-a-bet uniform:

 

[Tigers35456884]

On 6/30/2019 at 3:22 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

That's true. But the Braves' period away from the classic design was much longer, 24 years as compared to the Red Sox' 11 years. (Phil Niekro, for all his years as a Brave, wore the tomahawk in exactly one game: his 1987 finale.)  

 

And, when the Braves' classic design returned, there were significant changes: the tomahawk was changed from blue to red; and the front number was dropped. The Red Sox brought the classic uniform back intact.

 

 

Right. I mentioned that:

 

 

Of course, the Red Sox are not exactly like the Tigers or the Cardinals, each of which made a move away from its classic design for a single season: the Tigers dropped the Old English D in 1960; the Cardinals dropped the birds-on-bat in 1956.

 

  

 

So that is why I call the Red Sox a special case. I would probably ignore the Tigers' one-season alteration and date their design to 1934; but I wouldn't actually date the Red Sox' design continuously to 1936. I would, however, give the Red Sox a "Harvey Haddix asterisk", the way Haddix used to be included in the list of no-hitters even though, strictly speaking, he didn't belong there.

 

This, of course, is what makes Detroit's 2018 decision to remove the proper jersey D such an affront to the history of the club.