kenclark Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I found a link to these photos on the Angels message board. Great close-up photos of the uniforms. Interesting to see how small the players were in those years. I guess they weren't big into lifting weights back then.Angels PhotosNote the spacing of the "A" and the "S" on the front of the jerseys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon_Matrix Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Those halo's on the top of the hats are wicked! Nice find! Because Korbyn Is Colour Blind, My Signature Is Now Idiot Proof - Thanks Again Braden!!Go Leafs Go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleujayone Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I guess they weren't big into lifting weights back then.More like BALCO wasn't big into handing out the "Creme" and the "Clear" back then.Imagine that- people weren't as big as tree trunks and yet they still managed to break old records and set new ones anyway. ..............................Back on topic, the current Angels should consider adopting at least the cap halos again. We all have our little faults. Mine's in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenclark Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 There are also a couple great shots of the "Big A" scoreboard is left field. Check out picture 6. The little girl in the green shirt has some crazy glasses on.Getting back to the uniforms, notice that the G is dead center. The A doesn't appear to be bigger than the other letters so it looks like the team name is either off center or the spacing between the A and the N is greater than between other letters. I could be wrong, because the angle of the A could be causing a visual trick.The Angels had similar uniforms in the '90s. They dealt with the G by having a full G on the right breast side of the uniform that was partially obscured by the leaft breast side of the uniform when buttoned. The left breast side of the uniform had half a G dead center so when the uniform was buttoned up you couldn't tell there were 2 patches there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Boy Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Interesting to see how small the players were in those years. I guess they weren't big into lifting weights back then.The baggy flannel uniforms are not very complimentary when it comes to looking your most physically fit. Althought, the arms on that one black player in the photo look pretty big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenclark Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 I wish I could crop that kid's mug out of these photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no97 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Those halo's on the top of the hats are wicked! Nice find! Yeah, I always liked the halo look... I had this cap, once upon a time:Moose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Well it's not from 1969 because they aren't wearing the 100th anniversary patches... probably 68 or 67 --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net  "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenclark Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 One of the names on the outfield wall for Picture Day is Cottier (probably Chuck Cottier). Cottier played for the Angels in '68 and '69 so it must be '68 then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Back on topic, the current Angels should consider adopting at least the cap halos again. I agree, although I don't think they'd work with the red caps. Not enough contrast. So we're talking about going to blue caps as well.Not that I'd particularly mind. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I dunno, it's cute, but in that picture, the halo looks kind of jagged and not really a perfect circle. They're better off without it for now. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 no97's photo? The real ones were much nicer than that. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brinkeguthrie Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 adding the halo would be a nice way of kissing and making up with Anaheim--a nod to the past, etc. But LA Angels of Anaheim is still a silly name. IE; The Dallas Cowboys of Irving. The New York Giants of New Jersey, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avenger Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I didn't realize that they essentially used the Red Sox font on the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBird Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Wow, thanks for posting these links, these pictures are pretty cool.The Angels really have been doing this for a long time. I'm not sure if photo day these days lets you walk onto the field and snap pictures alongside your favorite Angels, but I know that a few years back (I want to say '95 or '96) I went to photo day and I have a picture of me with Jim Edmonds, in similar fashion as those on that website.The website says these are from 1968, So that would mean that it was the Angels' 3rd season in newly-built Anaheim Stadium. The Big A that's in those photos it still at the stadium. Today it doesn't look anything like it did then, and it's in a different place; instead of being right by the field, it's situated in the parking lot behind right field (thus, behind the gigantic right field scoreboard) to face the drivers on the 57 freeway.Any picture of the Angels at Anaheim Stadium between 1966-1979 is great because it was 1980 when they turned the stadium into a dual-purpose stadium, sharing space with the L.A. Rams. Being born in 1985, That's sadly the only way I remember the stadium begore the '96-97 renovation. Before 1980 though, The outfield was opened up much like it is now, except with no rock pile, and a nice view of the Big A and the 57 freeway from within the stadium.Anyway, those uniforms are wild, and it's weird to see a script font like that with any kind of outlining. We will never see anything like that these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 adding the halo would be a nice way of kissing and making up with Anaheim--a nod to the past, etc. But LA Angels of Anaheim is still a silly name. IE; The Dallas Cowboys of Irving. The New York Giants of New Jersey, etc. Sure it's a silly name. Everyone knows it's a silly name. Arte Moreno knows it's a silly name, but it's the best he can do under the contract the city signed with Disney. He needs to be the "LA Angels" in order to tap into television revenues for the club to stay competitive, and Anaheim has to go somewhere in there. So he compromises just a little bit. But nobody actually wants this name, not even the owner.Not to worry - just mentally drop the suffix.They're the Los Angeles Angels, and will be officially once the contract with Anaheim runs out. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedo Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I didn't realize that they essentially used the Red Sox font on the front. Pretty much. And if memory serves me right, they used the Red Sox-style numbers on the back, too. Their road jerseys were much the same, except the blue and red in 'Angels' were switched (blue script, red trim, in much the same was the Nationals do now in their home vs. road). http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits...if&Entryid=1107When they were the LA Angels, the road jerseys read "Los Angeles" (as did the Dodgers back then). http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits...gif&Entryid=996 "Old folks" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 The current Angels uniforms, regardless of the team's name, are perfect. No navy hats or halos need to come back. 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...
eatatmilliways Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I've said it before and I'll say it again, just name the team Los Angeles de Anaheim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 That's a cute idea, but that wouldn't really solve the problem. Everyone would see it for what it was - a Spanish translation of the old name. That doesn't stake out their claim to LA.Moreno did the math. In order to get the television revenues, his team had to acknowledge and market the fact that they are the Los Angeles franchise in the American League. Anaheim's a loser in that game - nobody wants to pay to broadcast "Anaheim" games, even if the ratings are good. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.