Jump to content

What's the Deal with Replicas?


ShinyHubCaps

Recommended Posts

Sorry about this, but I've been wondering, and I'm in a posting mood.

What's the deal with replica jerseys? Is there some rule by which they intentionally make it some amount different from the authentic?

Ignoring all fashion jerseys and additional logo creeps (i.e. NBA replicas have the adidas logo opposite the NBA logo, but the authentics do not), why are some jerseys notably different? I mean like NFL jerseys where the team logo is added in place of striping or shoulder numbers.

What is the logic behind not making replicas as authentic as possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The odd thing is, for some teams, the replicas are quite different. For others, they're spot-on, but with cheaper fabric. Just for kicks, I always assume it's a measure of how much a team's execs think they can get away with showing open contempt for their fans. The Red Sox could actually put "F--- You Fan Day" on the schedule and announce they're giving a punch in the gut to the first 15,000 fans 21 and over, and the Nation would only love them more for it. So of course the Red Sox have a "replica" that you can identify at 150 yards. The Nationals are scraping to build fan loyalty from scratch, so their replicas use exactly the same lettering as the authentics. The Twins respect their fans, but are increasingly embarrassed to admit they're from Minnesota (witness the cap changes of the past decade), so the home replicas are pretty good but the road replicas are very poor.

But because not everyone has the scratch to drop $300 or so on what amounts to a costume, I don't hate on fans who wear bad replicas. Except Yankees fans who wear personalized replicas with a player's name stitched on. There is nothing lamer in all of sports than the guy who shows up at a ballpark where the Yankees are the visitors wearing a pinstriped jersey with "JETER" stitched across the back. That guy deserves to be heckled mercilessly. But he's the only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Twins respect their fans, but are increasingly embarrassed to admit they're from Minnesota (witness the cap changes of the past decade)

Just as an aside, the "TC" logo was created so people in St. Paul wouldn't think the Twins only belonged to Minneapolis when the team first arrived. That they went back to it is more about its being a superior logo than them trying to downplay their hometown - unlike my Brewers, they actually wear their location proudly across their chest on the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Twins respect their fans, but are increasingly embarrassed to admit they're from Minnesota (witness the cap changes of the past decade)

Just as an aside, the "TC" logo was created so people in St. Paul wouldn't think the Twins only belonged to Minneapolis when the team first arrived. That they went back to it is more about its being a superior logo than them trying to downplay their hometown - unlike my Brewers, they actually wear their location proudly across their chest on the road.

Does anyone here not already know the origin of the TC logo?

Rant: On.

Anyway, "being a superior logo" is almost on the wrong side of the dividing line between opinion and fact. Conceptually, putting a TC on the cap is a great idea. But as actually executed, it's a terrible cap logo. I can't think of any legitimate grounds on which the TC logo can be judged "superior" to the M logo. It's simply too poorly executed. The C is simply not visible at a distance under most lighting conditions. If you have two letters in your logo, and one of those letters cannot be seen when viewed from a distance, that is a bad logo. Regardless of what you think about the concept of a TC logo, the actual TC logo is simply a badly designed logo. As a cap logo, it is a failure.

Rant: Off.

If only the Brewers would wear "Milwaukee" on the road, they'd be maybe my third-favorite uniforms in all of baseball. How does the chest logo of Brewers replicas compare with authentics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the NFL there are a variety of jerseys at different price points.

Pro-Cut/On Field - Not generally available to the public. Made by a company that's always made NFL jerseys no matter the manufacture.

Authentic - Priced over $300 in some cases. Very close to the actual on field product, but some have differences. One is the Bears who's fabric is different in the sholders and the numbers are wrong. Plus the arm cuff should be there and have the final stripes on it, but it does not.

Replithentic - $130 or so. Available at High End stores. These are replica jersey cut and striped with screened tackletwill. IE, they have 1 tackle twill layer but each different color is screened on

Replica - $80 Available at High End stores. These are pretty close in striping to the on field product but there are differences. Some teams are exact, others aren't that close. I think in many ways, this depends on the complexity of the jersey design.

Mid Replica - $50 Available at stores like JC Penny, Sears. These are a replica jersey cut, but the stripes don't go all the way around the sleeves.

Mass Replica - $30-40 I think. Available at stores like Walmart, Target. These typically look nothing like the on field product. All jerseys have a team logo on the sleeves and under the collar. For the most part, the lettering is like what the team wears.

You don't want to print up a Mass Replica the same as a Replica because what's the point of spending the extra money? Also, costs involved in the production of the jerseys effect what can go on them and the process they are applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ OK, thank you. That was more the answer I was looking for (rather than "Then buy the authentic," because I did buy the authentic, yet I wondered why the replicas lazily fall short of being exact).

One thing I noticed is that the Oakland Raiders, their jerseys are so bland and easy to replicate, yet the replicas would have like the shield logo on the sleeves, therefore like the "mass replica" you have listed above. It just seems easier and cheaper, though, to recreate their actual jerseys, that just look like black fabric with duct tape on them anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Twins respect their fans, but are increasingly embarrassed to admit they're from Minnesota (witness the cap changes of the past decade)

Just as an aside, the "TC" logo was created so people in St. Paul wouldn't think the Twins only belonged to Minneapolis when the team first arrived. That they went back to it is more about its being a superior logo than them trying to downplay their hometown - unlike my Brewers, they actually wear their location proudly across their chest on the road.

Does anyone here not already know the origin of the TC logo?

Rant: On.

Anyway, "being a superior logo" is almost on the wrong side of the dividing line between opinion and fact. Conceptually, putting a TC on the cap is a great idea. But as actually executed, it's a terrible cap logo. I can't think of any legitimate grounds on which the TC logo can be judged "superior" to the M logo. It's simply too poorly executed. The C is simply not visible at a distance under most lighting conditions. If you have two letters in your logo, and one of those letters cannot be seen when viewed from a distance, that is a bad logo. Regardless of what you think about the concept of a TC logo, the actual TC logo is simply a badly designed logo. As a cap logo, it is a failure.

Rant: Off.

It should also be noted that the "TC" logo returned (in 2002) at a time that the Twins were seeking a new ballpark (that , of course has now been approved, and is being built in downtown Minneapolis). However, at that time, they were pitting Minneapolis against St. Paul (as both wanted the ballpark in different locations in their town), and as a way of placating St. Paul, they brought back the Twin Cities "TC" logo... Fans love it, so now that they have their ballpark, I don't expect it to go away. But, make no mistake, there was a political reason for it's return as well.

Moose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replica - $80 Available at High End stores. These are pretty close in striping to the on field product but there are differences. Some teams are exact, others aren't that close. I think in many ways, this depends on the complexity of the jersey design.

80? man either theyve gone up in price since i last bought one (which is very possible) or im getting them at a great deal. at Modells here in So MD the Redskins reps go for 65 last i saw. the big difference between my replica and the onfield authentic jersey that ive noticed is that the sleeve striping is elastic and at the end of the sleeve whereas on my rep its striping then there is still more burgandy fabric at the end of the sleeve, its not hard to replicate the Redskins jerseys, so it doesnt look that off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until the edge jerseys and the purchase of the hockey company by rbk, replica NHL jerseys used to be almost identical to authentics, the only difference being lighter material, no fight strap, and heat glued numbers, nameplates, and crests. Other than that, they were basically the same. But now, the replicas are crap, which is appropriate considering they're basically identical to the authentics, which is crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember, back in the early-to-mid 90's the Champion NBA replicas available over here in the UK were totally different to the American ones. Ours were polyester and had the lettering & numbers screened on, and were generally pretty close to the look of the game jerseys. The American ones were nylon, had weird rubbery lettering and generally looked like generic jerseys with different colours.

Have no idea if that's the case nowadays - I haven't gone near an NBA replica in a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Twins respect their fans, but are increasingly embarrassed to admit they're from Minnesota (witness the cap changes of the past decade)

Just as an aside, the "TC" logo was created so people in St. Paul wouldn't think the Twins only belonged to Minneapolis when the team first arrived. That they went back to it is more about its being a superior logo than them trying to downplay their hometown - unlike my Brewers, they actually wear their location proudly across their chest on the road.

Does anyone here not already know the origin of the TC logo?

Rant: On.

Anyway, "being a superior logo" is almost on the wrong side of the dividing line between opinion and fact. Conceptually, putting a TC on the cap is a great idea. But as actually executed, it's a terrible cap logo. I can't think of any legitimate grounds on which the TC logo can be judged "superior" to the M logo. It's simply too poorly executed. The C is simply not visible at a distance under most lighting conditions. If you have two letters in your logo, and one of those letters cannot be seen when viewed from a distance, that is a bad logo. Regardless of what you think about the concept of a TC logo, the actual TC logo is simply a badly designed logo. As a cap logo, it is a failure.

Rant: Off.

If only the Brewers would wear "Milwaukee" on the road, they'd be maybe my third-favorite uniforms in all of baseball. How does the chest logo of Brewers replicas compare with authentics?

I have to strongly disagree with you. I think the logo is actually quite visible, and in the order in which you'd say the words: the white 'T' first "Twin" then the red wishbone 'C' "Cities". Reminds me of the Padres white and orange hat letters in the 90's. The problem with THAT logo was the fact that the 'S' was slightly above the 'D' and didn't have nice balance to it. The 'TC' logo works for me. It has nice visual balance with the 'T' right infront of the almost symmetrical 'C' and has both the straight edges of the letter 'T' and the nice curved features of the ever popular wishbone 'C'.

The letter 'M' logo is boring and too similar to the home jersey font for my liking. That font looks great on the jersey and overdone on the hat. Its not simple enough or visually appealing to stand on its own as a single letter on a baseball cap. My feeling is that hats should have clean and simple letters or letter combos. Again, this is MY opinion. I know plenty of other people who have similar thoughts to yours....as well as mine. The only exception is the Brewer 'B in G' logo...but thats neither here nor there concerning this discussion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.