charliec107 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 The MLB shop shows all of the authentic Nats jerseys without a patch. Even the alternate that I believe had a patch when was unveiled. Does anyone have any new about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 For 2006, the Nationals have removed the "Inaugural Season" patch off of the home uniforms, and have replaced it with the "DC" patch that is already on the road uniforms:The new Red alt jersey has the partial logo on the left sleeve - the one based on the primary, without the ball and stars: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 For 2006, the Nationals have removed the "Inaugural Season" patch off of the home uniforms, and have replaced it with the "DC" patch that is already on the road uniforms: "Inaugural Season" season Patch?? It celebrated the 100th anniversary in thier first year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 "Inaugural Season" season Patch?? It celebrated the 100th anniversary in thier first year. 100th anniversary... of what?!?!?!?! It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 "Inaugural Season" season Patch?? It celebrated the 100th anniversary in thier first year. You're right. It was this one:My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliec107 Posted February 15, 2006 Author Share Posted February 15, 2006 Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodboy13 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 That red alt patch needs the ball and stars. Otherwiise, it's just a wordmark, and that's nothing I care to see on a sleeve. And while we're at it, put some dang white in that piping! On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said: For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA. PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 "Inaugural Season" season Patch?? It celebrated the 100th anniversary in thier first year. 100th anniversary... of what?!?!?!?! The original American League team was known as the Nationals 1905-1954http://www.sportslogos.net/Site/team.php?t=90 www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 "Inaugural Season" season Patch?? It celebrated the 100th anniversary in thier first year. 100th anniversary... of what?!?!?!?! The original American League team was known as the Nationals 1905-1954http://www.sportslogos.net/Site/team.php?t=90 Yes, but the current Washington Nationals only date back to 1969. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallWonk Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 "Inaugural Season" season Patch?? It celebrated the 100th anniversary in thier first year. 100th anniversary... of what?!?!?!?! The original American League team was known as the Nationals 1905-1954http://www.sportslogos.net/Site/team.php?t=90Except that that team was actually founded in 1901 as the Nationals. The only thing that happened in 1905 was that the National put the word "Nationals" on their jerseys for the first time. And anyway, the name "Washington Nationals" dates to 1859, when the first organized baseball club in the city used the name. There's a terrific article in the latest SABR Baseball Research Journal about the original Nationals club and its influence in spreading organized baseball in the Midwest after the Civil War.But the 1905 thing commemorates nothing except MLB's ability to pull dates out of its rear. The only numbers that can legitimately follow the word "Est." on a Nationals patch are 1859, 1901, 1969, and 2005. Good riddance to that patch in favor of the DC logo. You just cannot go wrong with Law & Order font! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teenchy Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Except that that team was actually founded in 1901 as the Nationals. The only thing that happened in 1905 was that the National put the word "Nationals" on their jerseys for the first time. And anyway, the name "Washington Nationals" dates to 1859, when the first organized baseball club in the city used the name. There's a terrific article in the latest SABR Baseball Research Journal about the original Nationals club and its influence in spreading organized baseball in the Midwest after the Civil War.But the 1905 thing commemorates nothing except MLB's ability to pull dates out of its rear. The only numbers that can legitimately follow the word "Est." on a Nationals patch are 1859, 1901, 1969, and 2005. Good riddance to that patch in favor of the DC logo. You just cannot go wrong with Law & Order font!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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallWonk Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 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. Hey, that's cool. Thanks! If you don't mind, though, can you offer more detail about your sources? Being a lazy scholar, my research methodology tends to be along the lines of, "dig through stuff 'till you find the answer, remember what that answer is, and discard all notes and memory of sources, since after all you came looking for an answer, not for a bibliography." So I probably cannot reproduce the sources I found (though there were multiple calls to Cooperstown in the mix), but the best information I could find last year was that in fact the 1901 team did operate under the name Nationals in order to distinguish itself from the recently folded Senators franchise -- but that nobody, including the press, went along with the move. Thus the move in 1905 to put the name on the jerseys, not as a formal change of team name but as a way to try to "enforce" the team's name on the public. But like I said, your sources are probably more definitive than mine, so I'd love to have a chance to follow your research trail. Thanks again for updating the story for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 The only thing that happened in 1905 was that the National put the word "Nationals" on their jerseys for the first time. 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. It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teenchy Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 The only thing that happened in 1905 was that the National put the word "Nationals" on their jerseys for the first time. 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.gifhttp://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits..._washington.gifBall-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=283155Thomas' 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.