BC985 Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Now that we’ve seen it on the field, what is everyone’s opinion of this jersey? I’m not a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_DietDrPepper_ Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 3 hours ago, NicDB said: "DC" is way less ambiguous than "W." And the Nationals "W" apparently makes people think of Walgreens more than anything. Actually not for me atleast, Walgreens W never comes up when I think of sports, just as the nationals never come up when I’m going to the pharmacy. I’m slowly starting to hate the DC monogram, it’s far less superior than the W options. If you truly hate the Walgreens W than go for the Block one, not that ugly DC Follow the NFA, and My Baseball League here: https://ahsports.boardhost.com/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msu Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 I blame the state of Washington and Congress for this even being an issue. They could have picked a different name for Washington state/territory. This situation was recognized as something that would cause confusion, and still they went forward with the confusing Washington name for the state/territory. Ironically, this was after Congress rejected naming the state/territory Columbia for it being too similar to District of Columbia. It was even attempted by a House resolution to rename Washington territory to Washingtonia but that also failed: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhb&fileName=032/llhb032.db&recNum=1332 I do think the logo being called too similar to Walgreens argument has some merit, but I like the curly W much more than I like any version of the block W that has been worn by the Senators. I've always found the block W to be a bit boring, and more fitting for college athletics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WavePunter Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 I've loved the curly W since it was unveiled in 2005-ish.. I immediately purchased the all-navy 5950 (featuring the white W with red outlines).. I have never been a big fan of the red hat or two-tone hat, but I think I'm in the minority there.. I also never really got on board with the blocky, slab-serif identity they originally had (and still maintain with the DC monogram and uniform numbers).. I much prefer their script wordmarks and wish their identity was built on them, as they would mesh better with the curly W aesthetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 The two tone Nationals cap with the navy crown and the red bill has grown on me over the years but the all navy road cap from their early years is underrated. Though I can understand them wanting to inject more red into those navy-heavy early road uniforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeFrank Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 ALRIGHT HERE WE GO AGAIN. Technically, the city is not called "Washington." Technically, it isn't even a city. It's a district. And it has one name and one name only: the District of Columbia. Technically, the last time "the City of Washington" existed as a municipality and was part of the District of Columbia was 1871. But in reality, the District of Columbia, where 700,000+ people live, is commonly referred to as Washington DC, the District of Columbia, DC, the District, or Washington. It's dumb to try and say nobody calls it any of those things. I call it any of them depending on context. What is worth noting is that nobody calls it "Columbia." I mean, a named place in the United States could be a state, territory, county, parish, township, village, city, ward, military base, Alaska Native tribal entity, pueblo... or federal district. I would never think it weird to call LA "Los Angeles" even though it's officially the "City of Los Angeles." So, it would be weird if they were called the Columbia Nationals. But it's not weird they're called the Washington Nationals. Even District of Columbia Nationals or District Nationals would work. Or even the Washington DC Nationals. As for the logos, I remain torn. The "DC" mark is great, and it is generally accurate to say that "DC/the District" is more of a local thing than "Washington DC" or "Washington." But the curly W is so synonymous with baseball in this city now. It's everywhere. The Walgreens joke/comment/bane of my existence is about as played out as the Red Potato Skins joke/comment/thing that keeps me up at night. All of this will get so much more interesting when we finally achieve statehood. Because then, most of what is currently the District of Columbia will become the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. What is left, including most federal buildings, the Mall, etc. will continue to be the capital of the United States, the District of Columbia. I'm so happy to have started another incredible DC-centric pages-long discussions on this forum. Let's do this again soon please **EDIT** I've actually been reading the 1871 Organic Act and while it makes clear that Washington City and Georgetown are no longer their own "body corporates for municipal purposes," it continues to refer to them as as distinct "corporations" so that, for example, a downtown-heavy council couldn't unduly tax District residents living in what was still-rural Chevy Chase or Fort Totten. And while the 1871 Organic Act has been replaced, the current code still has references to the City of Washington as distinct from the larger District. I think. concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes potd 10/20/12 origin story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1409 Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Brandon9485 said: Now that we’ve seen it on the field, what is everyone’s opinion of this jersey? I’m not a fan. Me neither. The Mariners color scheme was perfect as is, no need to throw in light blue for the sake of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VandyDelphia Mike Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Maroon pants! Who's ready for some softball? NCAA Baseball Champions | 2014, 2019 facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilSox Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 10 hours ago, Brandon9485 said: Now that we’ve seen it on the field, what is everyone’s opinion of this jersey? I’m not a fan. Hate it. Who was calling for the Mariners of all teams to embrace powder blue? Especially with how badly it clashes with their current colors. If I were the Mariners, I'd stay away from anything having to do with their pre-1993 identity (save for maybe recoloring the pitchfork in navy and pacific green). Those teams were terrible for the most part, and the colors were just hand-me-downs from a team that played in the city for one year and went bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaGlowin Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 10 hours ago, Brandon9485 said: Now that we’ve seen it on the field, what is everyone’s opinion of this jersey? I’m not a fan. I hope they don't play the Rays! Last updated 2/26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTernup Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 58 minutes ago, NicDB said: Hate it. Who was calling for the Mariners of all teams to embrace powder blue? Especially with how badly it clashes with their current colors. If I were the Mariners, I'd stay away from anything having to do with their pre-1993 identity (save for maybe recoloring the pitchfork in navy and pacific green). Those teams were terrible for the most part, and the colors were just hand-me-downs from a team that played in the city for one year and went bankrupt. I can't be the only person who thought when they introduced those that they would be wearing them for road games only with matching blue pants, can I? Wearing these as your ST jersey with white and grey pants and not just a quirky road alternate is one of the dumbest uniform decisions I've ever seen. That color makes 0 sense for the Mariners, it's way to close to teal, makes them look like the Rays, and their wearing it in a completely new way that has nothing to do with how they historically wore it. When I first saw them wearing it with White pants I was dumbfounded, it makes no sense. It would be like if the Rockies just launched a green ST jersey because it was an accent color for the ASG they hosted or the Padres reintroduced sand jerseys but wore them with white and grey pants. IDIOTIC!!! Denver Nuggets Kansas City Chiefs Tampa Bay Rays Colorado Buffaloes Purdue Boilermakers Florida Gators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jn8 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 11 hours ago, Brandon9485 said: Now that we’ve seen it on the field, what is everyone’s opinion of this jersey? I’m not a fan. I like the idea of it in theory, but in practice it’s just not good. That said, if it’s only for spring training, I can live with it. Keep it out of the regular season though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 25 minutes ago, JTernup said: I can't be the only person who thought when they introduced those that they would be wearing them for road games only with matching blue pants, can I? Wearing these as your ST jersey with white and grey pants and not just a quirky road alternate is one of the dumbest uniform decisions I've ever seen. That color makes 0 sense for the Mariners, it's way to close to teal, makes them look like the Rays, and their wearing it in a completely new way that has nothing to do with how they historically wore it. When I first saw them wearing it with White pants I was dumbfounded, it makes no sense. It would be like if the Rockies just launched a green ST jersey because it was an accent color for the ASG they hosted or the Padres reintroduced sand jerseys but wore them with white and grey pants. IDIOTIC!!! Is it any worse than the Royals’ powder jersey? The powder and teal clash, of course. It looks terrible, but powder is enough of a “color” (not a white or grey derrivative) to work as a jersey without matching pants. That’s not the problem. MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTernup Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 No, the Royals look great in powder because they use it as a color. The Mariners are apparently going the same route but it causes a horrible clash with their most unique, marketable and underutilized color. If they had used it as a grey substitute I would've written it off as a quirk. The reason I hate this from the Mariners is because they are using it as a color. It bolsters the Royals scheme, it clashes with, causes confusion, and unnecessarily complicates the Mariners scheme. Denver Nuggets Kansas City Chiefs Tampa Bay Rays Colorado Buffaloes Purdue Boilermakers Florida Gators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 38 minutes ago, JTernup said: I can't be the only person who thought when they introduced those that they would be wearing them for road games only with matching blue pants, can I? Wearing these as your ST jersey with white and grey pants and not just a quirky road alternate is one of the dumbest uniform decisions I've ever seen. That color makes 0 sense for the Mariners, it's way to close to teal, makes them look like the Rays, and their wearing it in a completely new way that has nothing to do with how they historically wore it. When I first saw them wearing it with White pants I was dumbfounded, it makes no sense. It would be like if the Rockies just launched a green ST jersey because it was an accent color for the ASG they hosted or the Padres reintroduced sand jerseys but wore them with white and grey pants. IDIOTIC!!! These are ST training jerseys only...why would they wear them with blue pants in ST? Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTernup Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 1 minute ago, WSU151 said: These are ST training jerseys only...why would they wear them with blue pants in ST? Why wouldn't they? That's how this color originally came to be used. As I mentioned in my last post, it they wore them as an alternate road look with blue pants that is a quirky ST road alt. Wearing them in this fashion means they are adding powder blue to their scheme, so is powder blue only one of their colors in the spring or should we expect more? It's very strange. Denver Nuggets Kansas City Chiefs Tampa Bay Rays Colorado Buffaloes Purdue Boilermakers Florida Gators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 1 minute ago, JTernup said: Why wouldn't they? That's how this color originally came to be used. As I mentioned in my last post, it they wore them as an alternate road look with blue pants that is a quirky ST road alt. Wearing them in this fashion means they are adding powder blue to their scheme, so is powder blue only one of their colors in the spring or should we expect more? It's very strange. A lot of ST training stuff is for ST only. The Rockies don't wear their CO-state flag hats except for ST/BP. The Mariners aren't bringing light blue back to the mix for the regular season. Which is why they don't have blue pants. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTernup Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 Just now, WSU151 said: A lot of ST training stuff is for ST only. The Mariners aren't bringing light blue back to the mix for the regular season. Which is why they don't have blue pants. Thats fine, but it's a horrible choice even for ST only. I just think it's far more bizarre to introduce a ST jersey in a color that isn't in your scheme than it is to introduce a ST road alternate jersey that uses a previously used grey replacement. Both would be odd, but one is quirky the other is ridiculous. Denver Nuggets Kansas City Chiefs Tampa Bay Rays Colorado Buffaloes Purdue Boilermakers Florida Gators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilSox Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said: Is it any worse than the Royals’ powder jersey? The powder and teal clash, of course. It looks terrible, but powder is enough of a “color” (not a white or grey derrivative) to work as a jersey without matching pants. That’s not the problem. I dunno... this is basically what North Carolina wears and they seem to do pretty well with it. As much as I hate the Mariners doing it, I'm all for teams that actually looked good in powder blue embracing it as a team color. Especially in a case like the Royals, where they get accused of being Dodgers clones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadSeed84 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 Phillies Road jersey is now up with the thinner outline around Phillies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.