RedSox44 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 the Red Sox new roadie is (IMO) an upgrade. I can see how longtime success in that road uniform can positively effect the way a uniform looks.I do not understand. The World Series road uniform had matching lettering and numbers. This is a Good Thing, for a team to look like itself whether home or away. It's especially bad because single-layer navy blue on grey is precisely what the Yankees should be wearing on the road, once they realize they're still clad in a relic of the 1970s. I've never understood the idea that in addition to grey as a base rather than white, a team should wash out the rest of its color scheme, like the Nationals flipping from red-navy to navy-red, the Cardinals wearing navy hats, or the A's replacing one of the best hats in baseball with a weaker variation. (While it doesn't follow the same pattern, the Cubs going from blue outlined in red at home to separate white-trimmed blue and red looks hideous and drives me up the wall, those big red numbers on grey for a team so associated with blue that people are said to bleed its particular shade.) The only change, whenever possible, should be changing the base color and going from nickname/monogram to city. Leave everything else as it is. I know it's not terribly creative, but it's consistent, and consistency is important. So I guess what I'm saying is that the Red Sox look awful and not like themselves on the road. I don't care if they looked even more washed-out, red-bereft, and Yankee-like in '86; they had it wrong and got it right. If you want to better balance the red and navy in the Red Sox' scheme, make navy undershirts the norm home and away and let the red stand out against that.Addition of hanging sox sleeve patch: upgrade. Removal of nameplates: upgrade. Standardization of fonts = upgrade.To me, the old road was outdated in about 2005-2006. The 2009 revision was a great update on a classic design.If they brought back the 1980s design verbatim, then I'd whole-heartedly agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Yeah, you're right ... the red road unis lasted way too long but I'm sure a ton of people are superstitous about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 But they didn't standardize the fonts, inasmuch as one is red double-layer and the other is navy single-layer. That's a far greater mismatch than "Boston" looking rounder and thicker than it should've, or whatever the problem was.Direct stitching looks better than nameplates, but I don't consider that a "design change" ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The Red Sox road uniform as an individual uinform is a great look. But within the Red Sox identity, it's not. As mentioned, it's how the Yankees should probably look, but te Red Sox previous roads worked within the set and went well with the home (also the old red jersey was better than the new alts). https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox44 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Yeah, you're right ... the red road unis lasted way too long but I'm sure a ton of people are superstitous about them.Exactly. If the Red Sox hadn't "broken" the "curse" in them (twice!), then I'm sue a lot of people wouldn't have cared or would've welcomed the change.Like, if the Red Sox decided to change their road uniforms after the 2003 ALCS (Aaron :censored:ing Boone...), I'm sure a lot more people would've been welcoming to the changes. They didn't, they held on to them for way too long and made an upgrade.But they didn't standardize the fonts, inasmuch as one is red double-layer and the other is navy single-layer. That's a far greater mismatch than "Boston" looking rounder and thicker than it should've, or whatever the problem was.Direct stitching looks better than nameplates, but I don't consider that a "design change"If the Red Sox had kept the nameplates on the new uniforms, I wouldn't be nearly the ardent supporter of the uniforms as I am. You do not understand how ugly I think nameplates are on baseball jerseys.Anyway, yes the font on the old uniforms was rounder and thicker. And it started annoying the hell out of me around 2006.The Red Sox road uniform as an individual uinform is a great look. But within the Red Sox identity, it's not. As mentioned, it's how the Yankees should probably look, but te Red Sox previous roads worked within the set and went well with the home (also the old red jersey was better than the new alts).But the thing is, after the Red Sox ownership unveiled the new uniforms during the 2008-2009 offseason, they stated something to the affect of "We want to be a red team at home, a navy team on the road. That's the way it's been throughout the Red Sox history" (keep in mind that that was something hefty paraphrasing there).I do agree (as any Red Sox fan will) that the navy road alt and red home alt are ugly. If they wanted to keep the red alt, fine, but don't remove the placket striping! By far the worst part of that update.Also, I disagree with the notion that "this is how the Yankees should look". I think the Yankees roads (despite all the flack they get on these boards) are exactly how the Yankees should look on the road.All in all, could the road uniform benefit from red placket striping, and perhaps a red outline on the wordmark? Yes, absolutely. Is it still better (in my opinion) than what preceded them? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 But the thing is, after the Red Sox ownership unveiled the new uniforms during the 2008-2009 offseason, they stated something to the affect of "We want to be a red team at home, a navy team on the road. That's the way it's been throughout the Red Sox history" (keep in mind that that was something hefty paraphrasing there)BUT THAT IS STUPID. Furthermore, they wore red on the road for roughly 30 of the last 40 years, so in the time when people have been watching the Red Sox on television on any regular basis, they've generally looked like the same team whether home or away. So I'm not buyin'.Also, nobody needs white trim on grey anymore (except the White Sox, for obvious reasons), so yeah, the Yankees should just go to simple midnight blue block. The outlines on "New York" always look particularly clunky and troublesome.Look at the W, the O, and the R. They look odd. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Simple solution: POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 How can they be a navy team on the road. They don't wear navy socks on the road, do they?Referring to Boston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still MIGHTY Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 How can they be a navy team on the road. They don't wear navy socks on the road, do they?Referring to Boston.When the uniforms first came out, they did.Since then, they've gone to the red socks, because well, they are the Red Sox. There was a decent fuss made about it here. | ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULB | USMNT | USWNT | LAFC | OCSC | MAN UTD | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 To clarify the "navy blue on Red Sox road" question, here are a few historical uniforms from the past 40 years:1938-1971, featuring a navy blue block font "Boston", with the traditional number font and red hoistery.1972-1978, a pullover and sansabelt combo, that is identical to the home in every way except that it's gray and has "Boston" on the front.1979-1989, navy block lettering on the road, with red hoistery and varsity block number font (which the Red Sox should never wear). 1990-2008, red "Tuscan" font on the road, with the traditional number font and nameplates.2009-present, blue lettering, with traditional font and direct sewn lettering.In the Red Sox's history (pre-2009 redesign), the Red Sox had 43 years of straight-up blue lettering, vs. 28 years of red lettering on their road uniforms. For me, the red lettering looks better, but historically, the blue road lettering has had a longer lifespan than the red. MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMac12 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Simple solution:It's a neat concept, but the Yankees fans would never want it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Nope, nor should they. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Why not? Unlike the home pinstripes, it's not like the road uniforms have ever really had a set tradition. They've had everything from an interlocking NY on the road......to Rockies-esque road pinstripes......to the dreaded team name on the road......and for a while, they went piping/outline-free.Hell, at one point, they even used a Tuscan "New York" like the Mets.One thing they've never tried on any of their uniforms is a script, which is a damn shame, because their proprietary script font is very classy and has always looked good on their dugout jackets. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 No tradition? Twain was right. Most of your examples are from a brief period nearly a hundred years ago. With the exception of white outlines, and the two-year period with "YANKEES" on the chest, they've had essentially the same road uniform since the 1920s. That, my friend, is the very definition of a tradition. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 The bottom line it that the Yankees road uniforms look like crap with the white outline and the zero-character script. It could be fixed easily by putting a script that actually captures the Yankees identity on the road OR using the interlocking NY on the road. Being stubborn and insisting what you have is perfect does not give you a free pass. The Yankees current road uniform is definitely in the bottom 15 if not the bottom 10 in baseball right now. *ducks for cover* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 The 1913 Yankee roads are brilliant. Now that would be a great update to the current one. As mentioned, the current one just looks like the Billy Martin era ... probably because it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Which Billy Martin era? You need to be more specific. There is tremendous value in the current Yankees take the field wearing essentially the same uniform as Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio and all the others. You don't throw that tradition away just to chase the latest fads. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ltjets21 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 How can they be a navy team on the road. They don't wear navy socks on the road, do they?Referring to Boston.When the uniforms first came out, they did.Since then, they've gone to the red socks, because well, they are the Red Sox. There was a decent fuss made about it here.Idk why everyone flipped when the Red Sox weren't wearing red socks.....The White Sox have been wearing black socks for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 How can they be a navy team on the road. They don't wear navy socks on the road, do they?Referring to Boston.When the uniforms first came out, they did.Since then, they've gone to the red socks, because well, they are the Red Sox. There was a decent fuss made about it here.Idk why everyone flipped when the Red Sox weren't wearing red socks.....The White Sox have been wearing black socks for years.What does one have to do with the other? Pointing out another crime does not make one innocent of theirs. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox44 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 For what it's worth, seeing the Red Sox in blue socks during that first road series against the Angels in 2009 made me cringe.EDIT: In addition to the W, O and R on the Yankees road script, the K also looks very weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.