"MLB Twsited" Hats

[leedsunited]

Disappointed with these. With all the fashion-line caps and these "twisted" models, aren't they diluting the power and impact of the standard gameday attire, specifically hats and the colors/logos associated with them?

[simpsontide]

Does anyone remember the caps (I think Twins Enterprises did them) that took the current team's logo and put them to the colors of past teams? I remember a Blue Jays on that had the current "J" but with the colors of the 1977-1993 teams. Anyone have a link?

[FiddySicks]

ICS is gonna kill me but,

WANT!!!

[HatManTC]

Does anyone remember the caps (I think Twins Enterprises did them) that took the current team's logo and put them to the colors of past teams? I remember a Blue Jays on that had the current "J" but with the colors of the 1977-1993 teams. Anyone have a link?

kinda what you were looking for

[illwauk]

i've seen this somewhere...

thinking...thinking...thinking...

got it.

its the emblem off the Facist Republic of B-i-G's flag during its brief existance.

i knew i saw that logo somewhere.

The B-i-G Empire being a facist entity is nothing but propaganda... it was a benevolent dictatorship

[illwauk]

Ok... so the idea behind these hats is for the teams to look like their rivals. So why is there not a Brewers hat in Cubs colors and why does this hat exist?

Last I checked, the Brew Crew doesn't have anything close to a rivalry with the A's (other than both being located in a cities that are located near other bigger, but overrated cities and pretentious college towns that think they're the center of the universe.... but I digress). I'm sure it was probably just an excuse to make a Brewers hat in Packers colors. But it'd look a lot better if they just inversed the yellow and white.

Oh, and I take back what I said in parenthesis... San Fran's not overrated

Great. More gang hats.

maybe this me being naïve, but how is this a gang hat? just because its a NEW ERA fashion doesn't make it a "gang hat". I own a good portion of NE fashion caps and I'm nowhere close to being gang related. I like them(mostly solid colored ones) because they are a departure from being normal. who really wants to buy the same cap over and over again. your statement is overly sterotypical, and uncalled for.

If you want to represent your hometown with your gang's colors, these hats make it incredibly easy. Not everyone that buys these hats is a gangster, but there is definitely the possibility that they could be used for gangs. I had the same reaction as cheo25 when I opened up the Lids page. New Era has shown in the past that it's not above pandering to gangs and these hats, I'm sure, are designed in part to appeal to that market.

But again, buying these hats doesn't make you personally a gangster.

I still think the idea of throwing the blanket of "gang hats" on these is ignorant (at the very least). Making hats that specifically use gang symbols is one thing, but it's not New Era's responsibility to not manufacture products because of how they may or may not be used. If that's the case, we should extend that responsibility to every clothing manufacturer until it's only legal to make clothes in black, white and grey (neutral colors).

[leedsunited]

I wouldn't call these "gang hats" per se, as they seem pretty tame. Just more unnecessary recoloring garbage, violating the sacrosanct (or at least should be) order of official logo/colors.

However, with New Era's recent, blatant gang-related imagery on other lines of headwear, sometimes you really have to question the company's moral stance, if any exists. So no, I wouldn't give the company the benefit of the doubt.

[BallWonk]

I still think the idea of throwing the blanket of "gang hats" on these is ignorant (at the very least). Making hats that specifically use gang symbols is one thing, but it's not New Era's responsibility to not manufacture products because of how they may or may not be used. If that's the case, we should extend that responsibility to every clothing manufacturer until it's only legal to make clothes in black, white and grey (neutral colors).

Given New Era's not-at-all-subtle history of designing "fashion" caps for the gang and wannabe-gang markets, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume some degree of cynical behavior here until proven otherwise. I don't think these are meant as gang paraphernalia, but I don't see grounds to suggest ignorance or racism (let's be honest about what you mean by "at the very least") on the part of anyone who suspects New Era's motives here. This is a company that has invited such suspicion.

That said, black, white, and grey are definitely not neutral colors in terms of gang identification. Black is a common Crips color. I know that MS-13 is supposedly blue, or blue and white, but around here they're mostly associated with white. There's been some attempted gang activity in my neck of the woods where white teenagers have used gray as their color. The closest thing to a "neutral" color, from a not-selling-stuff-to-gangs perspective, would be green. But green is also used in some settings to signify a nonpartisan drug dealer. And it's sometimes used by less organized, neighborhood-level gangs. And Oakland A's caps are sometimes used as gang markers independent of their color. So you can't win even with green.

[kewp80]

i've seen this somewhere...

thinking...thinking...thinking...

got it.

its the emblem off the Facist Republic of B-i-G's flag during its brief existance.

i knew i saw that logo somewhere.

Uh oh, better keep that on the DL, we don't want anymore bloody conflicts

BTW, why would anyone want their team's hat in the colors of their rivals, I dunno, seems dumb to me. Some of these look pretty good however, but I'm glad their's no Cards ones. I couldn't take seeing a Cards hat in Cubs colors.

[illwauk]

I still think the idea of throwing the blanket of "gang hats" on these is ignorant (at the very least). Making hats that specifically use gang symbols is one thing, but it's not New Era's responsibility to not manufacture products because of how they may or may not be used. If that's the case, we should extend that responsibility to every clothing manufacturer until it's only legal to make clothes in black, white and grey (neutral colors).

Given New Era's not-at-all-subtle history of designing "fashion" caps for the gang and wannabe-gang markets, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume some degree of cynical behavior here until proven otherwise. I don't think these are meant as gang paraphernalia, but I don't see grounds to suggest ignorance or racism (let's be honest about what you mean by "at the very least") on the part of anyone who suspects New Era's motives here. This is a company that has invited such suspicion.

That said, black, white, and grey are definitely not neutral colors in terms of gang identification. Black is a common Crips color. I know that MS-13 is supposedly blue, or blue and white, but around here they're mostly associated with white. There's been some attempted gang activity in my neck of the woods where white teenagers have used gray as their color. The closest thing to a "neutral" color, from a not-selling-stuff-to-gangs perspective, would be green. But green is also used in some settings to signify a nonpartisan drug dealer. And it's sometimes used by less organized, neighborhood-level gangs. And Oakland A's caps are sometimes used as gang markers independent of their color. So you can't win even with green.

While I agree that New Era has invited cynicism on their own, the truth is they were accused of marketing to "gang members" long before they blatantly did so. And it would be naive to ignore that a lot of those accusations were (and still are) based on the fact that New Era designs a product that appeals to young black males. So to accuse a series such as this, which is obviously based on a premise having NOTHING to do with gangs, as being "gang related" is ignorant (and yes, I really do mean ignorant... when have I ever been known to be shy about accusing someone, or something, of being racist).

I also have to point out how amusing it is to see proponents of capitalism get upset over New Era (intentionally or not) marketing to gangs. As if they're not doing basic stuff they learned in Business 101.

And for the record, while black, white and grey are used by some gangs as secondary colors, on their own they're seen as neutral (which is why you rarely, if ever, see someone whose affiliated wearing a black, white or grey rag).

I wouldn't call these "gang hats" per se, as they seem pretty tame. Just more unnecessary recoloring garbage, violating the sacrosanct (or at least should be) order of official logo/colors.

However, with New Era's recent, blatant gang-related imagery on other lines of headwear, sometimes you really have to question the company's moral stance, if any exists. So no, I wouldn't give the company the benefit of the doubt.

There's no such thing as a "moral" capitalist entity... their only obligation is to make money. Period.

I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of slamming New Era for not having a moral compass while not saying the same about damn near every other manufacturer of sports-apparel (especially Nike).

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Eh, I'm with you on most issues of race and society, but not here. I'm not equating gangs with black youth. I'm equating hats that feature regional logos and icons combined with many color options. Your city and your colors are important to gangs, right? These hats make it easy to pair the two up. That's all.

Really, with your Marxist manifesto (kidding), you seem to be making the same point. Firms exist to maximize revenue. Targeting hats towards gangs (implicitly or explicitly) is good business. Why is it ignorant to make that connection?

And when you say there is no such thing as a "moral" capitalist entity, I think you should look into value propositions, and social bottom lines. The Gates Foundation is a spin-off of a pretty large capitalist entity, and it does quite a bit of good in the world.

[illwauk]

I get what you're saying... but any connection between gangs and these hats is strictly coincidental. I see calling these "gang hats" as analogous to saying that hip hop="gangsta rap."

I guess this is more personal for me than I'm letting on. Over the course of my life, I've owned tons of Brew Crew hats in colors other than whatever shades of blue and gold they've worn. And as you can imagine, I don't like being slapped in the face with the realization that some ignorant fools would assume that I have some kind of affiliation (or at least trying to have one) simply because I wanna support my Brewers in colors that don't clash with whatever I'm wearing.

[leedsunited]

I still think the idea of throwing the blanket of "gang hats" on these is ignorant (at the very least). Making hats that specifically use gang symbols is one thing, but it's not New Era's responsibility to not manufacture products because of how they may or may not be used. If that's the case, we should extend that responsibility to every clothing manufacturer until it's only legal to make clothes in black, white and grey (neutral colors).

Given New Era's not-at-all-subtle history of designing "fashion" caps for the gang and wannabe-gang markets, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume some degree of cynical behavior here until proven otherwise. I don't think these are meant as gang paraphernalia, but I don't see grounds to suggest ignorance or racism (let's be honest about what you mean by "at the very least") on the part of anyone who suspects New Era's motives here. This is a company that has invited such suspicion.

That said, black, white, and grey are definitely not neutral colors in terms of gang identification. Black is a common Crips color. I know that MS-13 is supposedly blue, or blue and white, but around here they're mostly associated with white. There's been some attempted gang activity in my neck of the woods where white teenagers have used gray as their color. The closest thing to a "neutral" color, from a not-selling-stuff-to-gangs perspective, would be green. But green is also used in some settings to signify a nonpartisan drug dealer. And it's sometimes used by less organized, neighborhood-level gangs. And Oakland A's caps are sometimes used as gang markers independent of their color. So you can't win even with green.

While I agree that New Era has invited cynicism on their own, the truth is they were accused of marketing to "gang members" long before they blatantly did so. And it would be naive to ignore that a lot of those accusations were (and still are) based on the fact that New Era designs a product that appeals to young black males. So to accuse a series such as this, which is obviously based on a premise having NOTHING to do with gangs, as being "gang related" is ignorant (and yes, I really do mean ignorant... when have I ever been known to be shy about accusing someone, or something, of being racist).

I also have to point out how amusing it is to see proponents of capitalism get upset over New Era (intentionally or not) marketing to gangs. As if they're not doing basic stuff they learned in Business 101.

And for the record, while black, white and grey are used by some gangs as secondary colors, on their own they're seen as neutral (which is why you rarely, if ever, see someone whose affiliated wearing a black, white or grey rag).

I wouldn't call these "gang hats" per se, as they seem pretty tame. Just more unnecessary recoloring garbage, violating the sacrosanct (or at least should be) order of official logo/colors.

However, with New Era's recent, blatant gang-related imagery on other lines of headwear, sometimes you really have to question the company's moral stance, if any exists. So no, I wouldn't give the company the benefit of the doubt.

There's no such thing as a "moral" capitalist entity... their only obligation is to make money. Period.

I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of slamming New Era for not having a moral compass while not saying the same about damn near every other manufacturer of sports-apparel (especially Nike).

No such thing as a moral stance for a corporation? Then why do some corporate sponsors pull their advertising dollars from television programs that contain questionable content? To insinuate that we shouldn't expect more from a corporate entity in terms of shameless marketing and pandering to criminal entities is wholly off-base. Not everything is fair game in the eternal hunt for your consumer dollar.

And no one's giving a Nike a free pass anywhere. I feel Nike is a wretched corporation myself in terms of its sweatshop employment tactics, but I haven't seen such blatant gang-promoting paraphernalia distributed by Nike as I have by New Era.

[aykay]

I don't know why, but I really like the Orioles cap in the A's colors. Maybe it's the whole O's/A's thing?

[Gothamite]

There's no such thing as a "moral" capitalist entity... their only obligation is to make money. Period.

I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of slamming New Era for not having a moral compass while not saying the same about damn near every other manufacturer of sports-apparel (especially Nike).

No such thing as a moral stance for a corporation? Then why do some corporate sponsors pull their advertising dollars from television programs that contain questionable content? To insinuate that we shouldn't expect more from a corporate entity in terms of shameless marketing and pandering to criminal entities is wholly off-base. Not everything is fair game in the eternal hunt for your consumer dollar.

Corporate sponsors pull advertising dollars because they're afraid of bad publicity. Which interferes with the whole "making money" thing. Nothing to do with their own morals.

Do I think corporations should have a moral code? Yes. But do they? No.

I am not aware of any corporation of major size that will put moral issues before profits. In fact, they have a legal and moral obligation to their stockholders to put profits before virtually every other concern.

That's capitalism for you. You don't like it, I'll save you a spot on the barricade.

[RyanB06]

I love the Phillies in Braves-colored one. I might just pick that one up. And they've got one that looks like the 1994 bad-luck blue cap! Sweet.

The Red Sox ones, OTOH, don't look all that great to me. The Sox/Nationals one looks the best, but I don't know about the other ones.

[New_Member]

One thing I have noticed about New Era is their selectivity in which teams have these fashion hats. It's usually the same teams--dominated by the Dodgers, Yankees and Braves. I can understand those teams being some of the most popular, but why include the Mariners and the Orioles while excluding the Mets, White Sox and the Angels? Every time New Era comes out with these styles I notice that the Mets options are either limited or non-existent. I really like some of these styles and as a Mets fan willing to waste $32 on a hat, this irritates me. Does any one know if how the licensing agreements work with these hat styles? Do the Dodgers, Cubs and Yankees somehow convince New Era to diminish the options for their rivals' fans? I know this is unlikely, but I find it equally unusual that such large markets would not have hats.

I don't want to inflame the gang/racism argument but if you objectively look at it:

If this was specifically marketed at gangs, wouldn't cities with gangs be the main target? Two cities people often associate with gangs--Miami and Los Angeles--are missing teams, the Marlins and Angels respectively. Meanwhile, tons of cities with no reputation for gang prevalence have hats for their teams.

Also, the theory that New Era has money to be made in marketing towards gangs is ludicrous. There are 150 million male (I assume its target audience) Americans out there to buy New Era hats. A ridiculously small percentage of this population is part of a gang. Would New Era really risk creating a strategy specifically aimed at gang-members and alienate/outrage most of their customer-base?

Furthermore, so many of these hats have mixed colors. A hat with both red and black, or red and blue, or whatever (I have no knowledge which gangs use which colors) would not be the best way to clearly identify yourself as a member of a specific gang.

Meanwhile, the "twisted" New Era phenomenon can easily be explained by fashion. Anybody with the slightest familiarity of the fashion tastes of young "urban" males knows that matching color themes from head to toe is common. Also, New Era has many earth-tone fashion hats. I doubt any gang has its members wear earth tones to signify themselves. Meanwhile, the earth tone hats fit in with a fashion explanation as it matches leather jackets, blue jeans and Timberlands--a common outfit.

I have friends who have shoes and hats in just about every color under the rainbow. This is a smart market to try to enter and is a much more logical explanation for the "twisted" hats than a gang strategy.

I don't mean to imply people I don't know are ignorant or racist, and I especially don't want to denigrate fellow Uniwatch types. However, to claim that a marketing strategy aimed at black youth is tailored at gang members either demonstrates a total lack of knowledge of black youth fashion culture or a paranoid view towards black social trends.

To suggest a major corporation change its business practices because some people are concerned that it helps gang members support their favorite teams while wearing the right color is asinine. I'm all for combating gang violence, but there are areas other than the fashion world where our efforts and concerns would be better spent.

[zer0dotcom]

Nuts to gangs, I like Red, and want a new Jays cap in red. Bought one once, too small for my friggin head now. Why can't New Era make another one that nice fitted? Some of these are nice...but they'll never be that red cap again...

[illwauk]

There's no such thing as a "moral" capitalist entity... their only obligation is to make money. Period.

I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of slamming New Era for not having a moral compass while not saying the same about damn near every other manufacturer of sports-apparel (especially Nike).

No such thing as a moral stance for a corporation? Then why do some corporate sponsors pull their advertising dollars from television programs that contain questionable content? To insinuate that we shouldn't expect more from a corporate entity in terms of shameless marketing and pandering to criminal entities is wholly off-base. Not everything is fair game in the eternal hunt for your consumer dollar.

Corporate sponsors pull advertising dollars because they're afraid of bad publicity. Which interferes with the whole "making money" thing. Nothing to do with their own morals.

Do I think corporations should have a moral code? Yes. But do they? No.

I am not aware of any corporation of major size that will put moral issues before profits. In fact, they have a legal and moral obligation to their stockholders to put profits before virtually every other concern.

That's capitalism for you. You don't like it, I'll save you a spot on the barricade.

Saved me a post (at least one with something to add to the conversation )

[Jer15]

Aw, no one to twist with for the Jays...

what do you mean? there are 6 different jays hats in other team colors on the site. or do you mean with other teams using their colors?

Oh oops. I missed the Jays ones. I was looking for the J-bird logo, didn't know they would use the T logo, so I overlooked.

I was hoping for a j-bird logo one as well.

But let's face it man, the Jay's always get the short end of the stick with this fashion stuff, be it hats, jerseys, or whatever. They just don't sell enough merch(as opposed to teams like the yankees or red socks) for it to be credible.