Looking for pics of 1932 Cubs

[leopard88]

Bumping this old thread because I'd really like a pic of the Cubs wordmark on the front of that jersey -- could use it for the site.

If anyone has one, please post!

The mods don't take kindly to people bumping 6 year old threads.

[MEANS]

yup, I have this mark in vector.

[TruColor]

Here it is, FWIW:

[The_Admiral]

Do your secret archives have a cleaner version of this:

because I really like that script a lot and would welcome it for BP/STs.

[TruColor]

Do your secret archives have a cleaner version of this:

because I really like that script a lot and would welcome it for BP/STs.

Actually, I don't have it. Which means one of two things:

1. It wasn't an official logo/script.
2. The MLB couldn't secure the trademark on it, so it wasn't included in the archives.

[SFGiants58]

Are there many cases of this happening in the MLB?

[TruColor]

Are there many cases of this happening in the MLB?

Yep. I can't really get into specifics, but there are quite a few marks (cap marks in particular) that won't ever see the light of day as far as throwbacks or throwback merchandise goes due to the MLB not being able to secure trademarks after the fact.

Some of the teams in the early days of pro baseball were changing marks and scripts every year, and none (or very few) were ever trademarked. Now that the MLB has recreated all of the marks and scripts (and most patches) digitally, the league had to go back and research each one and see if a trademark could be applied. In some cases, another entity had applied for it, and gotten it. Not much Major League Baseball can do about it now.

[St Louis Cardinals]

Are there many cases of this happening in the MLB?

Yep. I can't really get into specifics, but there are quite a few marks (cap marks in particular) that won't ever see the light of day as far as throwbacks or throwback merchandise goes due to the MLB not being able to secure trademarks after the fact.

Some of the teams in the early days of pro baseball were changing marks and scripts every year, and none (or very few) were ever trademarked. Now that the MLB has recreated all of the marks and scripts (and most patches) digitally, the league had to go back and research each one and see if a trademark could be applied. In some cases, another entity had applied for it, and gotten it. Not much Major League Baseball can do about it now.

Just wondering, but what are the restrictions on sharing these marks? If you could share one of these marks, why not all of them? Not complaining, just asking.

[SFGiants58]

So, I'm assuming that these wordmarks/cap logos still haven't gotten the digitization honor, especially seeing as how they all existed before digitization became standard in 1994 (except for that Mets one):

[TruColor]

Here's the deal:

• All headwear marks, uniform scripts, and pretty much all jersey patches from 1900-present have been digitized.
• Some will never be released due to trademark issues.
• I only have the ones that have been released via the Cooperstown Collection. Meaning - all that have been trademarked.

[SFGiants58]

Makes sense. The generic nature of some of the early insignias would make them somewhat hard to copyright, as well as the block scripts.

[CC97]

Here it is, FWIW:

Thank ya sir

[guest23]

Makes sense. The generic nature of some of the early insignias would make them somewhat hard to copyright, as well as the block scripts.

Trying to understand the mlb logic. Total assumption here:

So the strategy is that mlb will not allow these marks to be reproduced by their respective teams because they are essentially public domain and anyone could legally produce merchandise with the marks. Theoretically the marks could be reproduced legally right now but if they are not promoted by mlb clubs the merch will likely not be viewed as legitimate and thus sales would be extremly poor.

Would like to hear other explanations/perspectives on this interesting subject if there are any.