SabreGuy Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 you know what? I'm not repulsed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I LOVE those A's jersies! "You could put an empty orange helmet on the 50-yard line at Cleveland Browns Stadium and 50,000 fans would show up to stare at it."-Terry Pluto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDwas Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I rahter have him that Felix Rodriguez. Who just happens to be in Washington, right? Tomorrow's just your future yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubfan1985 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 According to Dressed to the Nines, Oakland never had an entirely green pullover with Oakland on the front in white outlined in yellow. What gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh1068 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 The A's throwback jerseys are actually completely accurate from what they wore in 1983 - 86. My issue is with the pants....they never wore belts with those tops, the pants had a green-gold-green waistband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winters in buffalo Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 The A's look a bit crappy, but the Giants are stylin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDwas Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Ruined. Why are the Giants wearing retros with their current numbers? That's pathetic. Because that was the number font they used on those uniforms! Actually the A's were wearing the '83 road uniform as I looked it up in Mark Okkonen's book. If they were wearing '82 it'd have "A's" on the left chest and they'd be wearing white pants.Wrong.And here's proof. Tomorrow's just your future yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braden Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 The A's look a bit crappy, but the Giants are stylin'. I'm going to have to disagree. I think it's the other way around. Those Oakland jerseys look nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysr92 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 The A's look a bit crappy, but the Giants are stylin'. I'm going to have to disagree. I think it's the other way around. Those Oakland jerseys look nice! def. agree, im an angels fan, so i despise the a's haha, but i still think those jerseys look sharp, so do the giants ones, but the a's one looks better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perfect Zero Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 The A's look a bit crappy, but the Giants are stylin'. I'm going to have to disagree. I think it's the other way around. Those Oakland jerseys look nice! def. agree, im an angels fan, so i despise the a's haha, but i still think those jerseys look sharp, so do the giants ones, but the a's one looks better Same here, I come from Arlington, and I think the A's look sharp in those uniforms. The two things that do it for me...1) More use of yellow2) Stirups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marlinfan Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Both these jerseys are retros and deserve to stay in the past only poking their little heads out once in a while. 1997 | 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Ruined. Why are the Giants wearing retros with their current numbers? That's pathetic. Because that was the number font they used on those uniforms! Actually the A's were wearing the '83 road uniform as I looked it up in Mark Okkonen's book. If they were wearing '82 it'd have "A's" on the left chest and they'd be wearing white pants.Wrong.And here's proof. Nope, that one's wrong, too. The Giants old g/u jerseys I've seen for sale have the same # font as the current Braves. That Clark throwback on mlb.com uses the Twins number font. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDwas Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Ruined. Why are the Giants wearing retros with their current numbers? That's pathetic. Because that was the number font they used on those uniforms! Actually the A's were wearing the '83 road uniform as I looked it up in Mark Okkonen's book. If they were wearing '82 it'd have "A's" on the left chest and they'd be wearing white pants.Wrong.And here's proof. Nope, that one's wrong, too. The Giants old g/u jerseys I've seen for sale have the same # font as the current Braves. That Clark throwback on mlb.com uses the Twins number font. So Mitchell & Ness is wrong? I find that hard to believe. Tomorrow's just your future yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDwas Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 And again and again and again. That's not their current number font. Like I said earlier. Tomorrow's just your future yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Ruined. Why are the Giants wearing retros with their current numbers? That's pathetic. Because that was the number font they used on those uniforms! Actually the A's were wearing the '83 road uniform as I looked it up in Mark Okkonen's book. If they were wearing '82 it'd have "A's" on the left chest and they'd be wearing white pants.Wrong.And here's proof. Nope, that one's wrong, too. The Giants old g/u jerseys I've seen for sale have the same # font as the current Braves. That Clark throwback on mlb.com uses the Twins number font. So Mitchell & Ness is wrong? I find that hard to believe. Mitchell and Ness is wrong...a lot. If you don't believe me, compare their Vlad Guerrero Expos road jersey to an actual Expos road jersey of the period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 And again and again and again. That's not their current number font. Like I said earlier. The twos on the Clark jersey on the baseball card are not the same as those on the TBC jersey on mlb.com. Neither is their current font. Like I said before, the Giants at that time were using the current Braves # font, and the TBC jersey offered for sale on mlb.com is using the current Twins # font. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouj Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Ruined. Why are the Giants wearing retros with their current numbers? That's pathetic. Because that was the number font they used on those uniforms! Actually the A's were wearing the '83 road uniform as I looked it up in Mark Okkonen's book. If they were wearing '82 it'd have "A's" on the left chest and they'd be wearing white pants.Wrong.And here's proof. Nope, that one's wrong, too. The Giants old g/u jerseys I've seen for sale have the same # font as the current Braves. That Clark throwback on mlb.com uses the Twins number font. So Mitchell & Ness is wrong? I find that hard to believe. Mitchell and Ness is wrong...a lot. If you don't believe me, compare their Vlad Guerrero Expos road jersey to an actual Expos road jersey of the period. Yeah, M&N gets it wrong more often than you think. If you want somethign more authoritative, go look at Bill Henderson's MLB Style Guide. I have it at home, so I can't look it up now.Those orange jerseys do look nice though. Go Astros!Go Texans!Go Rockets!Go Javelinas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouj Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Upon further review (checked Henderson's CD last night), the correct #'s that the Giants wore in 1982 was a slight variation of the Varsity font (it had slightly smaller serifs). The current # font was created when the Giants went to the new uniform set (as far as I know, the only other use of it by anyone other than the Giants was by San Diego State baseball, for 2004. There might be others, but that was the only picture I could find). It certainly looks like the Giants took their current # font and slapped it on the TBTC jerseys.The M&N reproduction is close, but not exact. It uses the standard Varsity font.As an aside, M&N reproductions will often go regular arch on the names even when the teams wore vertical arched names (like the '82 Giants or '86 Angels - I have both M&N versions of those jerseys). Go Astros!Go Texans!Go Rockets!Go Javelinas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedsunited Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 All I can say is those Giants jerseys are SHWEEEET. Oakland's too.I'm starting to dig the old v-neck pullover style again. Time for some smart team to bring it back fulltime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoDogg34 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 The pullover jerseys look funny being so baggy.Not that I'd want the skin tight dri-fit look, but I guess I'm not used to the loose fitting jerseys in that style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 The pullover jerseys look funny being so baggy.Not that I'd want the skin tight dri-fit look, but I guess I'm not used to the loose fitting jerseys in that style I'm not sure what's up with those pullovers, but the same thing happened with the Orioles 1977 TBTC Orange jersys in 2004. They were huge. I have a team-issued size 48 that looks more like a 52... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.