Good morning, I’m posting this during the second inning of Sunday Night’s game because knowing me I fell asleep on the couch around 9:45. Â Here’s a guest post from Greg:
A thought on the Mets.
For many a moon, I wore an old Brooklyn Dodger hat. I could relate, as a Brooklynite, as a ballplayer. It was a becoming hat too, I felt like it made me look alright, perhaps my imagination at work, but whatever. A nice shade of blue, good old fashioned white B. Fancy, but not too fancy. A baseball hat which could be worn around with jeans and T shirts.
The Mets find themselves in an unusual position. Unlike the Yankees, an ex-Baltimore team, the Mets really are a NY team, and they pick up from the Giants and Dodgers, who were likewise NY teams.
It was good that they took up the images of the Giants and Dodgers because, as many people will note, it was the competition between those two teams which enlivened the NY sports scene, and underscored the neighborhood aspect of our city (as it was before Robert Moses).
As Brooklyn was folded into NYC, it becomes perhaps inevitable that the Mets would take the Giants’ NY logo. Also too, the Mets were headed up partially by some old Giants fans. They settled the Mets in the locale where Moses had recommended the Dodgers move: Willets Pt.
They took the name of the Mets after some old baseball team which played in Harlem, in Staten Island, and perhaps elsewhere in NY, a feeder team to the Giants and Dodgers, providing a historical link. The Metropolitans, btw, is the better name imo.
They also got a nice insignia, the famous baseball-skyline image, which is much more exciting than the Yankees’ square, meaningless, bat-n-hat.
But something went wrong with the uniform. Rather than just take the Giants insignia and meld it with the Dodgers’ colors, they brought along the orange. Over time, the blue softened to a light shade, and now, in light blue and bright orange, they have one of the most striking color clashes in MLB.
Keep in mind that people want to wear the team hat on the street. For Mets fans, this is tricky, because that hat can’t easily be matched with. Frankly, it’s unwearable unless the wearer doesn’t care what people think about their fashion sense.
In addition to that problem, they also added pinstripes, creating a busy home uniform, which only got busier when they began putting numbers on the front and names on the back.
So there are two ways out of this: by addition, or by subtraction. I think by subtraction is the classier route. Ditch the pinstripes, wear them for old timer’s day. Have an away hat with light grey letters rather than orange, or a home hat with white letters rather than orange. Ditch the orange pin on top. Darken the blue to Dodger blue, as it should be in honor of that half of the Mets’ legacy. Altogether very wearable, subtle, and nice.
The other way is addition. By adding black, a neutral color like grey or white, the Mets can begin to abstract away from the clash of the bright blue and orange. It’s difficult combining all those colors in one uniform, and you can see it’s still a work in progress. Unfortunately, given the money the Mets have, PR, and some of their decisions, like the Dominoes Pizza-Citi Field emblem, four colors leaves room for mistakes.
An example, imo, is a lot of that hideous garb that fans are wearing, with random swaths of black, orange, and blue. A worse example, imo again, is how the genius of the baseball-skyline logo, with white, blue, and, orange, is contaminated, or cheapened, with a four color logo which includes black. The economy of the original design is lost.
Of course, there are those who will say the black was a 90s fad, and they’re right, but in this case, I view it as a happy accident, in some respects – because something had to be done.
I realize people want to go and see the Mets team they always used to see, but they have to appreciate that fans want to wear this stuff, and while they can for the Yankees or Red Sox, or many other teams, the Mets – who have a great logo on their hat, have really challenged the fan base with the bright blue and orange.
I also think that there is a little bit of a disconnect between the fans and the ownership. Fans just want to see consistency in the ‘uniform’. They don’t like it changing every day, and for good reason. Why can’t the Mets have alternate uniforms for special occasions only, like Old Timers Day? That would be the right time to pull out the 1969 hats and unis, or the 1986 hats and unis. And they could sell them right alongside their other wares for those who want them. But from a day to day basis, they need a single home uniform/hat and likewise for the road. Fans want this, and I can’t see why management can’t give the fans what they want, while also providing a true alternate.
Lastly, I want to comment on Citi Field. There’s been a lot of outcry about the Dodgers imagery, and the Mets did go a bit over the top with the Dodgers pictures in the Rotunda. It looks not only as a Jackie shrine, but a Dodger shrine.
That said, people should appreciate that the Mets on their own are just another expansion team. But as a connection back through time, through many decades, the Mets are a link to the Dodgers and the Giants, and some of the richest NY history, and richest baseball history. By providing that link to those old teams, the provide many of the fans with a link to their grandparents, their parents, and their uncles. Sure, the Dodgers and Giants took off for the west coast, but they left a lot of fans, or children of those fans, and all those memories of the fans, the stadiums, the aura, the players, behind. The Mets help themselves and the community by laying claim to those heirlooms, to represent that extremely rich NY NL baseball history.
For some people this is unimportant, I understand, but baseball is a history-oriented sport, and I think it’s appropriate for the Mets, or the Metropolitans, to be that team.
– Greg
You are entitled to your opinion. But in it seems to me that you “want to see a ‘Brooklyn’ team you always used to see”. Basically you want the Mets to use Dodger colors, with a black accent. Orange is the only color the Mets took from the Giants, and you want to get rid of it.
I, for one, never want to see the New York ‘Dodgers’ playing in NYC. The Mets colors are Blue & Orange, and should stay that way.
First, The Metropolitans were not a Feeder team for the Giants and Dodgers. The Metropolitans were the parent of what would become the Giants.
The Metropolitans were invited into both the American and National League at the same time, and they accepted both. The ownership created a second team, the Gothams (which would become the Giants). The Metropolitans went to the American League, with the Gothams going to the National.
After moving to Staten Island (playing in essentially the same place as the SI Yankees), and not drawing the anticipated fans, the Metropolitans failed. Which resulted in a large number of the players going to the Dodgers.
Now, as for pinstripes. Based on your other posts, you seem to be unfamiliar with the NL history in New York City. If you were, you would be aware that the Giants wore pinstripes before the Yankees did. Both the Dodgers, and Yankees donned pinstripes a year later. In fact, all three NY teams wore pinstripes simultaneously for roughly a 20 year period.
This concept that somehow pinstripes are a “Yankee†thing is simply factually incorrect. Pinstripes are a “Baseball†thing. Pinstripes are a “Mets” thing, and always should be.
By and large, I agree with what Greg had to say regarding the evolving nature of the Mets uniform and colors and also with FormerDirtDart’s explanation of the original Metropolitians origins in the 19th century.
Originally, the 20th Century inception of the Mets had colors which incorporated Dodger blue (i.e. a darker version than what the Mets currently use) and Giants orange. Additionally, from their onset the Mets also de facto incorporated the white of the Dodgers, while opting not to use the red they have their uniform numbers in. I believe that the addition of black as an official color was merely correcting a historical omission, and that they should have actually had black as an official color from the beginning.
Whereas it is true that in the Giants did wear pinstripes as early as 1911 (http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?league=NL&city=New+York&lowYear=1902&highYear=1957&sort=year&increment=18), as did the Dodgers (http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?league=NL&city=Brooklyn&lowYear=1902&highYear=1957&sort=year&increment=18), both teams also experimented in wearing checked patterns (http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/detail_page.asp?fileName=nl_1916_brooklyn.gif&Entryid=250 and http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/detail_page.asp?fileName=nl_1916_newyork.gif&Entryid=257) before they both settled into the uniforms (and indeed official colors) they are generally associated with today (http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/detail_page.asp?fileName=nl_1949_newyork.gif&Entryid=785 and http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/detail_page.asp?fileName=nl_1949_brooklyn.gif&Entryid=778 ). The Yankees, on the other hand, have worn pinstripes as early as 1912 (http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/detail_page.asp?fileName=al_1912_newyork.gif&Entryid=194), and continuously since 1916 (whereas the Giants last wore pinstripes in 1932 and the Dodgers in 1936) and are sourced in multiple sites as the reason that the Mets adopted the pinstripes in 1962 for their home uniforms (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?70416-history-of-mets-uniforms ; http://www.ehow.com/about_5047414_history-mets-jersey.html ; http://www.ultimatemets.com/uniforms.html, etc.). Also, while the pinstripe uniforms may serve as a reminder to some of the Mets victorious years (i.e. 1969,1973 and 1986), that would ignore the fact that they are also the primary home uniforms they have worn in the many more years in which when they were at best not very good and at times were horrid (i.e. 1962-1968; 1970-72; 1974-1983; 1991-94 and 1996 after which it can be argued that the primary home uniforms have actually been the Snow Whites; for reference – http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYM/ and http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?lowYear=1962&highYear=2010&city=New%20York&league=NL&sort=year&increment=18&pos=37).
I believe that 48 years removed from their foundation, the Mets have the luxury of looking back at what their history is as both a team and also as the New York National League team. Incorporating black into their color scheme merely serves to remind people that they consist of fans who both the cheered (and booed) the Dodgers and the Giants; and also to fans who have booed both of those teams their entire lives since they do not remember going to the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field to cheer (or boo) them. Also, adding black allows orange to be the accent color it should be (instead of a prominent color it should NEVER be – http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=360254629806 ) while offering the versatility to design a broader array of products for both the team and their fans.
I think adding black has been risky, as a bad PR organization, it gives them more tools to do damage with.
As a nod to the Giants, I like it. I also think it gives the overall combination a slightly dingy, dirty, subway effect, dark and dangerous.
The way they’ve incorporated it all, with drop shadows, strikes me as rather thoughtless.
I think they’re better off with subtraction rather than addition. Potentially it’s a great uniform because of the two logos, but traditionally it’s been too busy with lines and stripes and highlighting on top of highlighting, for my taste.
after getting my pinless dirty between gardening and warming up Junior before his game, I’m thinking there may actually be a use for a black Mets jersey! Suburban Active Daddy Wear?
What I think they should do is go the away uni with a darker grey, so it solves the problem you’re citing.
@Greg. Good suggestion. I haven’t been wearing my trusty road jersey because it has no customization. That might be a good one for infield practice. Will roll it out.
By the way if anyone is shopping, MLB shop has 25pct off until midnight. Google the code but I think it’s 25OFFONE. If you do buy, click on the Ike jersey on the right of the site, and the head wherever you want. I’d get a commission off the sale, no effect on you.
@michael your response should be a guest post!
earlier I should have also remind all that Blue and Orange are New York City colors
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Flag_of_New_York_City.svg
Additionally, I must disagree with Micheal on one point. Orange was always intended to be a primary, prominent color for the New York Mets
http://www.sportslogos.net/images/logos/54/67/full/34fklmt62f7bpq20uisaruz8d.gif
FormerDirtDart, although blue, white and orange are absolutely New York City colors (as shown in both the New York City flag – http://www.nyc.gov/html/nyc100/html/classroom/hist_info/nycflag.html and the one from where it gets its color combo from the Dutch “Prinzvlag” flag – http://flags.wikia.com/wiki/Netherlands), the popularity of the Mets is by no means confined to the city limits of NYC. A great deal of their fanbase comes from outside NYC, or the Tri-State area who other than their affinity for the team do not hold the city in the same regard as do those that do actually live there. Indeed, as in anything from New York the Mets themselves are a national(and also international)brand with fans in every city in which they play (for instance, more than once during regular season games, I have witnessed more Mets fans show up to cheer on their team at Turner Field than Braves fans there).
With regard to the Mets sleeve logo (and also the original cap logo), I would submit that the orange is merely a color used to highlight the much more prominent blue (and even the white). Again, I believe that originally omitting the black was a historic mistake that has over the past decade and a bit slowly been rectified.
Btw, just to be clear, I am much proud of the NY Giant heritage as the Dodgers. The stills of Willie Mays playing stick ball in Harlem are priceless, and a testimony to the way NY NL baseball was a neighborhood sport.
I’m just looking for a way to make their gear a little more amenable to street clothes.
Now, I agree with you, the Mets colors are identified by the uni you and I know. The Mets are not a black uni team in my mind. If they were just to soften the rough edges, darken the blue, maybe lighten the orange.
As for pins, while no doubt those other teams wore pins, it’s my guess was that they were chosen for the Mets as a nod to the Yankees.
And the pins look great, but then I wish they’d cut out the names on the back, the numbers on the front, in short: clean it up.
An away hat with grey letters would be a small concession for Mets fans who want to sport a cap without looking undone in civy clothes, dontcha think?
Totally agree with remembering and representing BOTH the Giants and the Dodgers. It should be remembered unlike the current owner that has Dodgerphilia, the original owner, Joan Payson, was a minority owner of the Giants (and the sole vote not to move that team out of New York).
The best of both of these legacy teams should be expressed in as meaningful a way as can be achieved, while not forgetting the 48 year history of the Mets. Including the black from the Giants goes, in a small way, toward that. Having some physical memorial at Citi Field for those pre-1958 HOF players from the two New York teams that moved west (and whose players may NEVER have played in California)is, in my opinion, something else that should be done. I’m not saying retire their number (although in Willie Mays case I believe they should as he was much more fully “New York” encompassing both the Giants and Mets and the Polo Grounds (although he also patrolled Shea for the Mets in 1972 and 1973)than he ever was “San Francisco” and Seals/Candlestick Parks. Realistically speaking, given the fact that the famous pictures have him either playing stick ball in Harlem or patrolling the Polo Grounds center field, many more people (outside of those residents of northern California)remember Willie as a New Yorker than a Californian.
Also, I agree with you regarding your assessment of the origin of the Mets pins. Alas, I am not one who is a great fan of them and believe that one New York team with them is enough.
Moreover, I actually do like the black and believe that perhaps the home cap should be the original one (i.e. a darker “Dodger” blue with the original Giant-orange NY logo) or else one modeled after the 1940-46 Giant cap replacing the red with orange and an alt. cap of blue and white like the 1936-39 Giants (http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?league=NL&city=New+York&lowYear=1935&highYear=1948&sort=year&increment=18) However, perhaps the road cap could be the all-black one with the blue/orange/white NY logo which is easy to discern on TV (after all, the original road uniform is essentially the same as the one the 1957 Giants had and has only been changed by adding numbers on front and names on back – http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?league=NL&city=New+York&lowYear=1957&highYear=1966&sort=year&increment=9). If not doing that, perhaps keep the hybrid blue-billed cap, replacing the blue on orange logo with either a cleaner all orange logo like the Giants or else reverse the blue and orange so you have orange NY on blue background on a black cap. I wouldn’t really be a fan of a gray NY logo on a blue cap. To me it would seem kind of dull.
Also, in a perfect world, no team would ever have NOB for home jerseys and all would for road ones.
FWIW.
One more point, I remember there used to be an old Giants hat with blue and white, and I think red. And there was a dodger hat with green, right?
Not only that, but I also want to say I think NY Football Jets team had better sense about a couple things. Notably the name, considering the planes overhead at Shea, is fantastic. Sums it up, and it’s similar in a way to the dodgers name, in that both refer to having to dodge commercial transportation!
I think Jets is a great name. Mets … I didn’t know until my 20’s what that was for, or what it even meant. What’s a ‘met’?
You’re correct with regard to the Giants red, white and blue (1940-46). They also wore just blue and white (what we would now know as Dodger colors) from 1936-39.
http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?league=NL&city=New+York&lowYear=1936&highYear=1946&sort=year&increment=15
@michael i love that red white and blue giants jersey. ive mentioned before if you’re ever at a Mets game and see that jersey in #4 walking around, it’s probably me.
Would totally love the Mets to use that Giants jersey to model a home alt jersey after (including having Mets written in the font the 1940 Giants used and changing the red to orange so Mets colors replace the ones the Giants used) and ditch the black one. Love the NY logo on the sleeve. At the risk of gaining further anger from those who love the current Mets home uniforms, always wondered why they would have the Mets sleeve patch on the home uniforms (and also alt jerseys) that already had Mets in very large letters across the front. I think it would make a lot more sense to have the NY logo on the sleeve. Conversely, when you’ve got the road “New York” across the front of the jersey, it makes sense to have the Mets patch on the sleeve. FWIW.
@Michael as much as I love the red white and blue giants jersey…
I don’t think a printed M E T S would look good just because of the lack of letters
And we don’t need more colors.
@ Shannon, I don’t think that the printed M E T S instead of the current script would be that bad (but admit, I’d like to see it first). It would just require more centering. Also, wouldn’t add any more colors, merely substitute the orange for red.
@gregory i know for me its hard to judge the nickname Mets after the fact. “NL Police 1961” probably would have disliked the nickname, just knowing how I think. Had they gone with Burros we’d have our mule.
OK, fair enough. But look what the Tigers do. They have orange on one hat, and on that hat, the blue is not so bright. Altogether a little mellower. And the other hat, well that’s the picture of something you can wear anywhere.
I like the Mets hat. I like that it’s distinctive. I’m just asking for an alternate that doesn’t add more confusion, an alternate that’s low key. The Mets stuff has always been just chaotic, or conducive to chaos.
one takeaway I have today is that in retrospect, the original cap probably should have been blue and white, dodger blue, giants logo.
Like this – http://tsa.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pMLB2-2546071reg.jpg ?
That’s it Mike. Those at home, and the old ones w orange on the road, wouldn’t be bad by me. Only sad thing is it would rip off the Tigers.
That is a 1936 Giants Cooperstown Collection cap. The Tigers orange-D caps didn’t start getting used until 1972, so the Mets wouldn’t have been copying them had they had blue cap/orange logo road cap.
I totally believe this. That would have made them look good on the field and on the street. Simple and honors both teams. The orange was the key.
Having orange though, it makes a more of a pastiche, and it’s challenging, and it’s distinctive. It could work, but it calls for deftness on the part of whoever designs these unis. Unfortunately ….
The Jets also chose their name to rhyme with Mets.
and their colors are taken from the gas company, Hess.
I think the 1987 script New York would be a great change on the road uni. Dump all the black (undershirts, hats, socks, drop shadow, and jerseys). They can claim Giants heritage all they want, but the black jerseys look like 1999 threw up on Citi Field when they wear them. What I would like to see: Pinstriped home with front number and name on back removed, Grey road with 1987 New York script, no number on front. Blue alternate with white NY on left breast outlined in orange, White number outlined in orange on right breast. orange-white-orange striping sleeves of alternate. Changing the cap to a white NY outlined in orange would also help. I love the racing stripes from the 80s unis and would love to see them return but I am probably the only Mets fan in the world that would.
So, basically, you want the road jersey to be more-or-less the 1993 road jersey with 1987 New York script – http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/detail_page.asp?fileName=nl_1993_newyork.gif&Entryid=1752 .
I must admit, I would not be a big fan of your blue alt jersey and absolutely hate the racing stripes. But of course, I like the black too.
Whatever they do, I’d like them to settle down. Pick something, and stick with it, and resolve alt unis for alt occasions. Sunday isn’t an occasion.
Would that mean then, given the current state of the uniforms, that the pinstripe alt home uniform (the Snow Whites being the official Home uniform this year) would only be used on, say, Opening Day, turn-back-the-clock nights, etc.?
Constancy is a uniform. Uniform means uniform. So, that being said, if they were to wear pink tiara’s every day, at least I’d know who they were.
When I take my tike to Mets games, it’s really hard to explain, from one day to the next, which team is the Mets.
Yeah, even if they were to commit to my least favorite: black hats, black shirts, and white pants; I’d be happy if they just did it, and get over it already. Not knowing what your team looks like sends a message through the system about the lack of an identity.
@gregory as much as it would pain me, I agree with you – if they went black and hybrids for 50 years at least it would have consistency.
The alternate was just a thought. I really dont care much for alternates period, but most teams’ marketing departments seem to love them. I didn’t think many other fans would like the racing stripes, my wife always complains about how tacky my fashion sense is, but they were the first uniform I remember the Mets in, so I will probably be attached to them forever.
as an alternate for old timers day, it would be good by me.
tell me, diff question, what’s w the popularity of the reds hats these day? someone put black on them, and kids can’t get enough of them. it can’t be the team’s play on the field. why them and not the mets?
Red, black, and white look good together. Black, blue, orange, and white look like crap. Even just the black and blue by themselves look horrible. It reminds me of the old Orlando Magic uniforms. Blue and orange may be a bit loud, but black and blue with 4 different orange and white outlines and drop shadows is much worse.
I don’t think the red, black and white combo worked out well for the Cincinatti team. At least they eliminated the vested jersey (including the black sleeves on the road one) and returned to normal sleeved jerseys – http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?league=NL&city=Cincinnati&lowYear=2000&highYear=2010&sort=year&increment=12 .
Maybe the Mets could still keep their current official colors (i.e. black, orange and blue), but not necessarily use ALL of them at the same time. However, I don’t necessarily think that the blue-brimmed black cap would be nearly as bad if they only had an orange NY logo instead of trying to have the blue one outlined by orange on a black cap. What makes that particular cap unappealing, in my opinion, is that it makes the NY difficult to make out. Simply having orange on black would eliminate this problem (but I’m not sure about the rights the Giants may claim to this particular design).
@michael YES YES YES: What makes that particular cap unappealing, in my opinion, is that it makes the NY difficult to make out. Simply having orange on black would eliminate this problem (but I’m not sure about the rights the Giants may claim to this particular design).
No they got way too carried away with the black. It is ok the way they have it now, with the black as just a trim color. I prefer the plain red and white ones from the Big Red Machine era, and I bet they would see an uptick in merch sales if they brought those 70s unis up to date and went back to them full time. A big part of the Yankees’ mystique and their merchandise success is the fact that their unis have changed very little since the mid 30s when the put the NY on the pinstripes permanently. I can’t see why teams with long and somewhat successful histories like the Reds would succumb to the black uniform gimmick. This is something best left to the Royals, Mariners, Rangers, or Nats/Expos of the world.
@Rudy the racing stripe is probably best left in the 80s. A clean look that stays over time is the way to go.
If they wanna have crazy Sunday unis I’m ok with it. Gotta sell merch.
Yeah I guess they would look like they stepped out of a time machine wearing those nowadays. I say go back to the 1962 pins at home, no name on back, no front number, and either the 1987 road script w/o front number or a grey jersey with blue piping with the NY on the left breast. I wouldnt want any regular alternate, just occasional throwbacks. If they had to go with a regular alternate, the 83 blue jerseys with the sleeve striping toned down would be pretty cool to see.
I didnt mention it before, but the home pinless whites need to go too. They are a clear manifestation of the Wilpons’ Dodger fetish. We don’t need to acknowledge our dodger heritage anymore. We already have a life size tribute to Ebbets Field and a rotunda dedicated to a man that was several years retired by the time the Mets came into existence. Not taking anything away from Jackie, but he was not a Met.
Actually, the Dodgers never had uniforms like the Snow Whites. All of the home Dodger uniforms from 1938 on had Dodgers script-written on the chest, but DID NOT have the piping seen on the current Mets unis. Also, they were a darker shade of white. http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?league=NL&city=Brooklyn&lowYear=1938&highYear=1957&sort=year&increment=18
Well the Mets announced earlier this month that they would be correcting that small difference by removing the piping from the snow whites.
Pinless white jerseys with blue script just looks like a dodger rip-off. you wouldnt want the mets to start wearing pinstriped home whites with the NY on the left breast would you? Or a plain cream colored home with mets in arched fancy capitals? Dont see why it is ok to copy the dodgers and not the other NY teams. The mets need to be the Mets. They took Dodger blue, Giant orange, and Yankee pinstripes. They already have a great tradition and a great uniform history if they would dump the 90s gimmicks and Dodger imitations. But the Wilpons just keep pining for 1955 and the Dodgers, neglecting this franchise’s own great history in the process.
Although the Wilpons can usually be expected to Dodgerfy (is that even a real word) much of the greatness that is the Mets, the last I read was that the removal of the piping was being considered, but that nothing had yet been decided. Also, I would really like to see what is done to the jersey before I would speculate further.
I do wonder, however, what sort of uniform the Mets will wear in their 50th year in 2012 (I believe they get the All Star game then too). I would bet that they are already planning for that now.
@michael next season is the 50th season (like 1986 celebrated the 25th) – and ASG isn’t available until 2013. 2012 supposedly in KC.
With respect to the All-Star Game, it appears that you’re correct (I should have actually verified what I put down before writing it; usually I’m quite good at that). Finding nothing to verify one way or the other, I will defer to your expertise on the 50th Anniversary as well.
Here we go again…Let’s not get all crazy and start rearranging and redoing the wheel. The current and original color scheme is fine. Whether it clashes or not is a matter of choice and taste. While some may agree that the lighter shade of blue is strikingly sore the eyes, its part of the Mets color scheme. If we could keep the Black fitted, ditch the drop shadow and rid the Hybrid we would have a solution that would stick with tradition and go with that “stuck here to stay” Black look. A campaign along those lines would go farther than redoing and rearranging the color scheme for the sake of change. . THen we could worry about darkening the blue shade a bit. Darkening it to reflect the Current Dodger or Royals Blue would perfect a color scheme that was designed to reflect Two Teams that ditched NY in the 50’s and gave birth to the Mets. As always ditch the HYBRID! Thank you. That is all.
Shannon – It amazes me that there is so much talk about the uniforms. Yet I feel I should not even mention the outfield wall anymore because its like beating a dead horse and who wants to be annoying. But as much as the talk about uniforms, especially black uniforms, at least now and then the Mets wear the pinstripes. But every home game and in almost every shot you see that black wall in the background and I just dont understand their decision to use that instead of a dark blue that would not upset the classic look of citifield. And I cant see someone say, “oh I just love the black walls”. I can understand being indifferent about them. But I bet alot like me would say, “I dislike the black walls”. But it looks like it should be in PacBell (or whatever that stadium is called now.) I think the look of the stadium and its colors is just as important as uniforms.
If you want to talk about the wall, let’s talk about that line they drew, the new home run line. How ludicrous was that? For about three or four feet adjusted, they painted a new line. The consequence? Instead of seeing whether the ball goes over the wall or not, we’re going to have panels of judges looking at TV recordings, trying to see whether it struck a cm higher or lower. I wish I could say something nice about it, but all I can think of is that it is an embarrassingly bad idea.
@jesse for some reason the black wall doesn’t bother me. I realize that’s more or less inconsistent with my basic personality. I welcome guest posts and support the idea of blue, I just don’t have personal passion about it.
I dont understand trying to justify colors based on what the NY Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers wore. How about starting with 1962…the Mets colors were blue and orange. (Yes i know where they came from). Black was added to sell more jerseys, not because of the NY Giants. However, the Mets went crazy and added black to everything even though the combination of blue/black and orange makes it look like black/blue/and purple. Having an all black jersey is ok (blue would be better), but the black undershirts and two tone cap on the home or road greys just looks ugly. (let alone the atrocious two tone helmet which also looks purpleish with a black mets logo..WTF??) It doesnt look clean or professional at all. I would be much happier with the following changes:
1. All Blue caps/blue undershirts for home whites (pin/no pin) and road greys.
2. If black must stay then all black caps with black jerseys either home or away.
3. The Mets always had pinstripes so i dont understand all this talk of dropping them. They should be the primary home uniform…it simply looks better than the solid whites.
My 2 cents.
@dannyheep yep the black/blue really dies create a purple look. People are pretty passionate about this topic. I’m somewhat laying off this week because I know some of the readers are bored with it.