Gothamite Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 New Era > any other ball cap company.Sure, they have some flaws, but when you buy one, just make sure you inspect it. There is no better ballcap than a New Era 59Fifty. It DOMINATES over all. "Some flaws?"Minor things like the bills not being sewn on straight, the logos not being centered on the front and the listed sizes being only a vague guideline (I have New Era caps in my collection from 7 1/4 to 7 3/4 with an identical fit).New Era quality control is garbage. Terrible, terrible quality in far too many of their products. It's a crapshoot, to see if you'll get a decent one or a poorly made one.I can understand liking the styling of the 59Fifties, but any cap that you have to manually inspect before you buy it can never "dominate over all". The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallWonk Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I have very mixed experience with Cooperstown Ballcap Co. My first cap from them was fantastic. Great fit, great feel, looked sharp, and the embroidery was spot-on. I bought two more caps from Cooperstown over the years, and both suffered from various degrees of shoddiness, especially with the sweat band and the embroidery. Really disappointing. But just Friday night I ran into a guy with just about the most beautiful vintage-style Nationals cap I've ever seen. I asked him about his cap, and lo and behold it was a Cooperstown 1951 Senators cap with a red button instead of blue. It had great workmanship, the right weight of not-too-heavy wool, and the embroidery was perfect. The cap looked for all the world like a real, old 5050. So in my personal experience Cooperstown is 2 for 4. Half the caps of theirs I've seen have been truly superior caps, easily worth the $40-plus price if you don't wait for one of their periodic sales. The other two have been complete crap. Really, really badly made caps for which I would not willingly pay even $5. So I would only take a risk on a Cooperstown cap when the cap is on sale, and I would not hesitate to return any cap that is less than perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evobost Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 In my own experience, I have thoroughly enjoyed all of my Twins Franchise hats. I have about 10 or so, but it does take me a little while to find the right one, i.e. centering of the logo, the right size because i have Mediums and Larges which can fit the same sometimes. Also the NewEra 5950 caps, I have not even picked one up to look at it in the last ten years because they look so ridiculous on your head. The crown on those is absurd, did you watch the all-star game, when they were introducing all the players and the hats look just awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajmccall Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Roman used to make a solid cap. Store 1 Store 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiddFinch Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Here is what really gets me with CBC illustrated in one hat on eBay. This is their dubiously named "1932" Brooklyn Dodgers model. Dark royal with a very light blue bill is a complete historical inaccuracy and never existed as an on-field cap - it is based on errors in the first Okkonen book from nearly 20 years ago. The logo is a misshapen farce of an attempt at a Brooklyn logo when viewed next to any one of a few hundred photos I have. I called them when I first saw this model on their website and eBay a while back - they swear the colors and logo are correct , they have photographic proof, blah, blah, blah, they know all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no97 Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Here is what really gets me with CBC illustrated in one hat on eBay. This is their dubiously named "1932" Brooklyn Dodgers model. Dark royal with a very light blue bill is a complete historical inaccuracy and never existed as an on-field cap - it is based on errors in the first Okkonen book from nearly 20 years ago. The logo is a misshapen farce of an attempt at a Brooklyn logo when viewed next to any one of a few hundred photos I have. I called them when I first saw this model on their website and eBay a while back - they swear the colors and logo are correct , they have photographic proof, blah, blah, blah, they know all... Here's the problem then - don't buy that cap. They do a fine job overall in terms of historical accuracy (especially considering the sheer number of caps they offer), but the quality has been my problem. That one looks quite good, IMHO. If it's not accurate, in terms of historical accuracy, then get one that is accurate!Moose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyk Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 New Era without a doubt. Reebox sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nateoxford Posted July 18, 2006 Author Share Posted July 18, 2006 Here is what really gets me with CBC illustrated in one hat on eBay. This is their dubiously named "1932" Brooklyn Dodgers model. Dark royal with a very light blue bill is a complete historical inaccuracy and never existed as an on-field cap - it is based on errors in the first Okkonen book from nearly 20 years ago. The logo is a misshapen farce of an attempt at a Brooklyn logo when viewed next to any one of a few hundred photos I have. I called them when I first saw this model on their website and eBay a while back - they swear the colors and logo are correct , they have photographic proof, blah, blah, blah, they know all... I don't know if this helps, but the CBC website says that the cap is actually of the 1932 Brooklyn Robins, not the Brooklyn Dodgers. I've scoured Google for a photo of the Robins, but can't seem to find one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no97 Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Here is what really gets me with CBC illustrated in one hat on eBay. This is their dubiously named "1932" Brooklyn Dodgers model. Dark royal with a very light blue bill is a complete historical inaccuracy and never existed as an on-field cap - it is based on errors in the first Okkonen book from nearly 20 years ago. The logo is a misshapen farce of an attempt at a Brooklyn logo when viewed next to any one of a few hundred photos I have. I called them when I first saw this model on their website and eBay a while back - they swear the colors and logo are correct , they have photographic proof, blah, blah, blah, they know all... I don't know if this helps, but the CBC website says that the cap is actually of the 1932 Brooklyn Robins, not the Brooklyn Dodgers. I've scoured Google for a photo of the Robins, but can't seem to find one. Baseball-Almanac.com has the Dodgers using the name Robins from 1914-1931 (scroll towords the bottom of that page).Here's the 1931 Robins unis:And the 1932 Dodgers:There is nothing on the Dressed to the Nines site that looks remotely like that Brooklyn cap...But, again, I'll say that for the most part, CBC does a great job with the historical accuracy of their ballcaps (especially for a company that produces, if the web-site is to be believed, something like 1500 different caps). Occasionally, they are going to get one wrong. And, who knows, maybe they do have a photo of a one-game special Brooklyn Dodgers dark blue with a light blue billed cap that was worn in 1932 (besides that all their other Brooklyn Superbas/Dodgers/Robins caps look reasonably accurate)...Moose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I wouldn't say that they do a "great job with the historical accuracy". I'd say that they do a fair job. As they do with the craftsmanship, which ranges from decent to downright lousy.Sacrificing quality on the altar of quantity.Considering how much they charge for such marginal quality, I don't think that's a reasonable trade. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleaster Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I own three CBC caps, all of them are their internet specials. One is a Phillies 1976 pillbox. Logo is not "raised" as the current 5950s are, but it's a nice representation and generally is a comfortable cap to wear. The shape is about B-Plus quality. I also have a 61 LA Angels cap. I love it and wear it all the time. Shape is perfect wool is first quality, logo is straight on and accurate. Finally I have a 1912 mud hens unstructured cap. I'M IN FREAKING LOVE!!! They make these unstructured styles better than any other A-PLUS!!!In short, I've never been dissatisfied, and really like their caps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no97 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Sacrificing quality on the altar of quantity.Considering how much they charge for such marginal quality, I don't think that's a reasonable trade. This may be the fairest statement... I mean realy, 1500 different styles? Do you realy think they've even sold one of each? I'd much rather see only historical MLB caps, and see them done correctly and at a high quality (especially at $44 each), than see 1500 styles to chose from...Moose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.