Jump to content

St. Louis Cardinals helmet oddity


Frylock

Recommended Posts

Since I've been cleaning through a bunch of my old sports magazines, catalogs and calendars, I've found a few things worth scanning and sharing with all of you. This will be the first of many installments!

Anyhow, I'm hoping that someone might be able to some background for something I see in the picture below...

4544657615_3b7710c92e_o.jpg

Here's the story:

July 7, 1964. Major League Baseball All-Star game, held at Shea Stadium. We see Ken Boyer of the Cardinals rounding third, about to shake hands with Cincinnati Reds manager Fred Hutchinson, following his 4th inning home run. So far, nothing odd about that. But here's what IS odd.

Look at the STL insignia on Boyer's helmet. It's dark blue outlined in white, completely opposite of what it should be. For example, from the (slightly flawed) Dressed to the Nines exhibit:

nl_1964_stlouis.gif

Now for what it's worth, 1964 was first year the Cardinals wore a red hat at home since 1939 (albeit a white cap with red stripes) and the first time since 1923 that they wore a solid red hat, period. The 1919 squad appears to be the last team to wear a red cap with the STL insignia.

So my questions are:

1 - Were the Cardinals helmets like this all season long?

2 - Did their home hats match the helmets with the reversed colors?

3 - Was this just one of those All-Star uniform snafus? As in "just slap a sticker on the helmet and call it good."

I've never seen a red Cardinals hat or helmet with the STL in any configuration other than white outlined in blue. And we can throw out the suggestion that they put the road hat/helmet logo on there, as that STL is red outlined in white.

Cardinals experts, let's hear the story! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Dressed to the Nines is slightly flawed, as you said, they probably used the blue monograms for a few years and D2the9s never noted the small change.

Also, holy crap, arching the player names below the number is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on a baseball uniform. If they had been arched the other way it wouldn't be quite so bad, but it would still be terrible. It's that ridiculous. I wish I could say "I expect better from the Reds," but how many years have they not gotten it wrong? Like two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. I've seen my fair share of old Cardinals photos and I've NEVER seen that. I'd bet it was a one game thing. It also seems to be the non-standard STL. Which did happen, there were variations on it, but I think by 1964 they were using something pretty close to what is currently in use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Dressed to the Nines is slightly flawed, as you said, they probably used the blue monograms for a few years and D2the9s never noted the small change.

Also, holy crap, arching the player names below the number is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on a baseball uniform. If they had been arched the other way it wouldn't be quite so bad, but it would still be terrible. It's that ridiculous. I wish I could say "I expect better from the Reds," but how many years have they not gotten it wrong? Like two?

Actually, doesn't it make perfect sense? Since the vests were more like actual vests, and not just sleeveless shirts back then, there was less real esate for a full name, so why not move the number up into the smaller space and put the name where there's a lot more room? I agree the arching looks odd, but it really couldn't be arched the other way without running in to the arm holes. I'd try to make the names as straight as possible if I could. I'd also consider going with thinner letters instead of big two-color block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Dressed to the Nines is slightly flawed, as you said, they probably used the blue monograms for a few years and D2the9s never noted the small change.

In defense of D2the9s in this instance, they are only showing the ball cap, not the batting helmet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today on the News Ticker of the Uniwatch Blog there was a link to a picture of Red Schoendienst wearing a baseball cap that was exactly like this batting helmet. They were wondering the same thing. They've never seen them before either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! How's that for serendipity... I've had that pic of Ken Boyer in my stack to scan for over a month and just got to it last night. And then just as illini1 points out, this shows up on UniWatch:

RedSchoendienst1961-65.jpg

What are the odds, right?

STL FANATIC -- the pic comes from an old calendar series called "PLAY BALL!". They were packed with old photos, bios, and player birthdates on every day of the year. It was a thing of beauty...

RE: Reds vest NOB -- I love it! The NOB under number has always been a quirk I enjoy, and the arching just adds a little something sweet, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, doesn't it make perfect sense? Since the vests were more like actual vests, and not just sleeveless shirts back then, there was less real esate for a full name, so why not move the number up into the smaller space and put the name where there's a lot more room? I agree the arching looks odd, but it really couldn't be arched the other way without running in to the arm holes. I'd try to make the names as straight as possible if I could. I'd also consider going with thinner letters instead of big two-color block.

Hmm. That's an interesting approach, but I've already made up my mind and decided they're completely awful. The solution to losing upper-back space due to vests would be not to have vests, because vests are stupid and ugly. I guess I'm just too used to names above numbers. I don't like names below in basketball, either, so at least I'm consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, doesn't it make perfect sense? Since the vests were more like actual vests, and not just sleeveless shirts back then, there was less real esate for a full name, so why not move the number up into the smaller space and put the name where there's a lot more room? I agree the arching looks odd, but it really couldn't be arched the other way without running in to the arm holes. I'd try to make the names as straight as possible if I could. I'd also consider going with thinner letters instead of big two-color block.

Hmm. That's an interesting approach, but I've already made up my mind and decided they're completely awful. The solution to losing upper-back space due to vests would be not to have vests, because vests are stupid and ugly. I guess I'm just too used to names above numbers. I don't like names below in basketball, either, so at least I'm consistent.

I think that Reds set is awful, and it's even worse that they brought those back in the 1990s.

I'm sure the vest had a practical philosophy behind it, but every time I see a team wearing a vest, I wonder if the players are going to Chuck E. Cheese when the game is done. Vests scream "Little League." The fact that the Rockies have two versions of them, including one that's the same color as the t-shirt underneath them, is pretty sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were the cardinals wearing the helmet "patches" like the Cubs wore for a while? As in, they were embroidered patches that were glued to the outside of the batting helmet as opposed to having them painted on? I am not sure that the picture depicts one of those, but its a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Reds actually wore those as throwbacks last season

Civil+Rights+Game+004.JPG

I agree the NOB's look silly like that and I hated the redesigned version they tried in the 90's. White baseball hats will never be okay with me.

Anybody remember the batting helmet snafu the Cardinals had in the all-star game a couple years ago? I'm a little hazy on the details, but I think pujols brought the standard blue helmet (because the NL was the road team) and Chris Ludwick forgot a helmet so somebody on a red-helmeted team gave him theirs and they used a sticker from the blue helmet on the red one. Am I remembering that correctly?

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.