FYI: Astros TBC jersey is by far the #1 seller of all of this year’s TBC jerseys. The Senators is a very distant 2nd place.

I gotta tell you that the players are NOT going to wear elasticized pants or tight-fitting uniforms, so get past that because it’s not going to happen!

A – They’re supposed to be an homage, not a down-to-the-angstrom copy. If you want to be completely period-specific, Derrek Lee wouldn’t have been playing in the Cubs’ 1948 game and Koskue Fukodome would have been just out of an internment camp.[/quote]

DITTO !!![/quote]

Exactly. The point is to pay tribute to an old team or players from an old team, not necessarily to recreate the uniforms down to the seam stitching. Button-front jerseys, for example, are simply safer than zipper-front jerseys. There is no excuse for letting a big-league player take the field in an inferior uniform, and if that means wearing a button-front throwback instead of a zipper-front throwback, or a belt instead of elastic waist, then so be it.

As far as superficial elements can be gotten right, they should be gotten right. But baseball teams aren’t actually in the business of doing fashion and textiles research. We ask too much when we demand more than passing a casual fan’s look-and-feel test for any throwback. More accurate is generally better, but there is such a thing as close enough. The most important test here is, “Does the uniform as a whole communicate the right history to the casual fan?” If a throwback passes that test — and the Astros’ uniforms this weekend certainly did — then we’re well past the point where it’s reasonable to say that any inaccuracies render a throwback not worth doing.

Besides, sometimes the inaccurate throwbacks are fine on their own. The Nats wore “1943 Homestead Grays” uniforms last year that in no way resembled anything the Grays ever actually wore in any year. And yet that “throwback” might have been the most beautiful uniform ever worn in the history of baseball. They looked like the Grays in the general look-and-feel sense, but the details of the uniform were better. The “A” in “Grays” lined up properly with the placket piping. All the piping was of uniform width. The numbers were in that Wild West style of the ’70s White Sox, a perfect match for the “Grays” script. The fabric was a rich cream. The pants had contrast-panel belt loops and pocket flaps. All slight differences from an actual Grays uniform, but every one of them an improvement on the original.

As someone who suffered through two seasons of little league wearing rainbow-stripe Astros jerseys, I also prefer the Astros throwbacks from this weekend to the real thing. (Definition of cruelty: Dressing pre-teen boys in rainbow shirts to play a ballgame.) It got the spirit of the thing right while reducing some of the garish awfulness of the originals, and I guarantee that no more than a few thousand people in the country could recognize any difference.

Which is all by way of wishing that we would phrase critiques of throwbacks more in terms of praise for the uniforms that do a better job than in terms of condemnation of the uniforms that do a worse job.

First year of rainbow body (with the number on white disc), they did wear black shoes, at least during the early part of the season. Doesn’t make what they wore Saturday look right, though, cuz black shoes with that uni are virtually forgotten…so they looked ridiculous.

But let’s be clear: Rainbow body was worn only with white rainbow striped pants both home and road for entire run of that jersey, even when they returned to navy hats with it.

Now on to the Rays…am I the only one who thinks those Pelicans suits are better than what they wear now…or have ever worn, for that matter? I mean, nobody in MLB wears maroon/burgundy and gold. Although I do know why the Rays’d never go to that combination. Having spent the better part of three winter in South Florida recently, I’m guessing pro teams down there don’t like to do anything that would indicate a preference among Florida, Florida State and U of Miami (esp. the first two).[/quote]

TOTALLY AGREE that the St. Pete throwbacks are better than ANYTHING the Rays have ever worn as a regular uniform. Why not the same uni with different colors?

It amazes me the crappy unis worn in every sport at every level when their are OBVIOUSLY better uniforms to be easily had.

The true test of ANY UNFORM is whether or not it is the best it can be, given the logos, colors, traditions and at certain levels, within a budget.

The crap that passes for current unis are insanely weak and benefit no one, not even the marketing departments, much less the fans.

A – They’re supposed to be an homage, not a down-to-the-angstrom copy. If you want to be completely period-specific, Derrek Lee wouldn’t have been playing in the Cubs’ 1948 game and Koskue Fukodome would have been just out of an internment camp.

B – The Rays (and other teams) have done nights before where they wore uniforms that were out of their franchise timeline (the Rays have worn Tampa Smokers unis and Tampa Tarpons, both historic Tampa minor league teams, while others have worn Negro League togs). So what?

C – AFAIK, Tampa Bay’s team has been the Devil Rays and Rays. There was some debate at startup (I have the newspapers around here somewhere) as to whether they’d be Devil Rays or Manta Rays, but that doesn’t count as a name change per se).

D – As someone who covered the Senior League, they nailed the Pelicans’ uniforms. I mean nailed them. Batting helmets and everything (even though they are CoolFlos). That means nothing to anybody, maybe the 500 people who remember that team.

E – They’re not going to consult with you before they do these things, so it may be best if you just not take it as a personal affront when a team doesn’t get every bit of striping absolutely perfect when they do a throwback night.[/quote]

DITTO !!!

The Astros wore white (or cream, in the case of the rainbow sleeve uniforms) on the road from 1975-93, even with the pants. There were a few teams that wore white pants on the road with colored tops in the 1970s and 80s.

What really got butchered was the rainbow top itself. Uniform makers have been using the wrong “Astros” font for throwbacks and jerseys sold in the store for years. The font they use is the font that was on the rainbow sleeves toward the end of the rainbow era. The font the Astros really wore was a bolder type.

Furthermore, there wasn’t nearly as much white space at the top of the rainbow jersey. And that’s important because the numbers last night couldn’t fit all the way in the rainbow portion. Back in the day, the Astros’ numbers weren’t in any part of the white — that’s where the name went.[/quote]

GREY PANTS

I am not a big fan of grey pants with dark uniform tops. I believe it looks dingy.

I’d much rather prefer white pants on the road with dark tops, or even dark pants to match, and save the grey for grey tops.

[quote comment="276569"]God, we bitch about throwbacks a lot.
B – The Rays (and other teams) have done nights before where they wore uniforms that were out of their franchise timeline (the Rays have worn Tampa Smokers unis and Tampa Tarpons, both historic Tampa minor league teams, while others have worn Negro League togs). So what?[/quote]

I am well aware this was not the first time that TB or any other team has worn a uni outside of their franchise history, and I don’t think anything in my comment implied that. I just find it unstable and tossed out the question–clearly you don’t. Cool, but I still do, if you don’t mind.

back pocket NewEra cap

close up with buckram removed

and of course the surgery procedure itself:

here

80′s look http://exhibits.base...

70′s look http://exhibits.base...

Looks like they were going for the 80′s look rather than the 70′s look.

http://exhibits.base...‘s look

http://exhibits.base...‘s look