31 Comments
User's avatar
Andy Kocemba's avatar

I always take it as a given that home jerseys feature the nickname, while roads feature city/state. I was surprised to see in this era 8 teams (including the Phillies) had team nicknames on both home and road jerseys.

Doug Keklak's avatar

I know this post is four months old, but I just subscribed today! What's up with the A's page? White sanis? Gold stirrups?

That Reds' pullover would have been cool.

Rob Bru's avatar

fab write up and style guide!

Chris C's avatar

Those Reds unis are what they should always wear. Also, maybe it's because of my fondness for Major League, but I'll always love those Indians uniforms.

Michael (MJ) Driscoll's avatar

They really botched the uniform numbers on many of the teams. The White Sox, Expos and Cardinals are depicted in fonts they never wore. And I second that discrepancy with the Mets' road uniforms.

M.X. Turner's avatar

I wonder what thought process went into the uniform number for each team's jersey mockups.

Ryan's avatar

Very odd that there’s a verbal description of every uniform, except the Expos. From looking at the date, it seems this change happened in 1991, as the Expos looks to be the only version dated for 1991.

Paul Lukas's avatar

Several other teams' sheets are dated 10/91 and lack the description: Cardinals, Padres, etc.

Philip Clarke's avatar

Fantastic uniform investigative work! You’re kicking the devil’s butt again with your detailed descriptions. Thank you, Paul!

Les Campbell's avatar

I'm surprised that by 1992 so many teams had already migrated away from the protocol of team name on home whites and city name on road uniforms. Looks like 8 teams (Angels, Orioles, Tigers, Royals, Reds, Astros, Dodgers and Cardinals) had abandoned that practice already (Yankees always were an outlier, I believe). If memory serves several of those teams have toggled back at least for brief periods since.

Danny Kaufmann's avatar

I love this article! One thing I noticed was that the White Sox number font in the guide didn't match real life, specifically the 0. The inside of the 0 is formed by a square instead of another octagon. Here's a photo of Tim Raines for comparison: http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2028/5101/products/tim-raines-chicago-white-sox-1991-costacos-poster_1024x1024.jpg?v=1573517673

Mike's avatar

An absolute treasure trove from my formative years of watching baseball as a 10-12-year-old. Loved this!

Charlie Steele's avatar

The inconsistency with the labels is bothering me! Here's what I noticed:

- Baltimore's orange jersey is labelled "home jersey", while their white one has no label.

- The White Sox's black jersey is labelled "secondary jersey".

- Cincinnati's red jersey is labelled "secondary home and road jersey", while the other two are labelled "primary home jersey" and "primary road jersey".

Terry Mark's avatar

What a trip down memory lane. I love everything about this post. I consider this time period to be on the cusp of a golden age. Logos and uniforms had some consistency and a system, and designs weren't just created to sell merchandise.

Matthew Radican's avatar

Great post! It's cool that such a great wealth of uni information is displayed in a generic 3-ring binder. Don't players and managers just wear hoodies now? I don't see much wearing of jackets.

Simon's avatar

So many specifics...except pinstripes. Is it universal that they are same width, same spacing between stripes?

Paul Lukas's avatar

This is a great, great point! I don't think the MLB Style Guide has *ever*, at any point in its history, included specs for the pinstripes.

FWIW, 15 years ago I wrote an ESPN article about the evolution of the Yankees' pinstripes. One of my favorite Uni Watch research projects ever! Details here: https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/081217

Art Salatto's avatar

Love this - more please!