Threads News Feed

Read all about it—a recap of some recent postings:

January 27, 2024 — This may be the best team photo EVER -– 1896 Detroit

Team photos are baseball treasures, especially from the 19th century. The faces of the players, some hopeful, some haggard, tell many stories. The heavy flannel uniforms, the old-school equipment, the soft natural lighting — these all make for enchanting images.

Even so, it was up to the photographer to compose the scene, set the background and instruct his subjects. It’s clear that photographer Clarence M. Hayes of Detroit was a master at all of this.

Remarkably, Hayes may also be the first to ever photograph the Detroit “D,” which was new in 1896.

See this little-known image here.

October 21, 2023 — Swinging for the fences -– a deep dive on the Page Fence Giants.

As team pictures go, the “fence” photo of the Page Fence Giants remains one of the more unusual images baseball has ever produced. Though widely published, the year in which the image was made remains in question. The same could be said about Hall of Famer Sol White. Was he in this photo, or not? And where exactly was this photo taken?

In studying this intriguing image we found a few answers, made a few discoveries – and even came across a runaway black bear.

The deep dive starts here.

September 10, 2023 — The Cuban Giants stood here, exactly here, in 1886.

Those who have studied black baseball know that the story is missing chapters — box scores are lost, player histories have holes, and existing photographs offer more questions than answers — especially in the 19th century.

Therefore, it’s somewhat unique that we can pinpoint the exact location where the Cuban Giants were photographed in 1886.

See that exact spot here.

August 12, 2023 — Why did Charles Radbourn flip us the finger on opening day, 1886?

Most of us know the image. A team photo where Boston Hall-of-Fame pitcher Charles Radbourn smugly said “f-you” to the world — his inappropriate gesture forever preserved for all of time. The photo was made on opening day, April 29, 1886, and some have speculated that this was the earliest known recorded visual of this kind of demonstration.

Sure, Radbourn was ornery, cantankerous, and sometimes hungover — but, there may be another reason why he flipped us the bird.

Read more and see the uniform here.

February 12, 2022 — A quick look at the Zouave fad in baseball, circa 1870

Recently, researcher Ed Morton unearthed a nice uniform description of the 1870 Union team of Morrisania, NY. (For those unfamiliar, Union was a top pro team in the country during this time, and Morrisania today is included as part of The Bronx.) The description said that the Unions in a game against Atlantic on April 21, 1870, “appeared in their new picturesque uniform [including] checked zouave pants.” Umm, what kind of pants? Well, if we pair that description with an 1870 New York Clipper engraving of Union pitcher Charlie Pabor we get a good idea of what these super-baggy knickers looked like.

To see the Union uniform of 1870 and to learn about the zouave fashion in baseball, click here.

Not only were the Unions one of the nation’s strongest teams between 1866 and 1870, but they were also strong on zouave. They wore baggy pants in 1866, 1867 and 1868. So, how many teams were wearing this look?

The Athletics and Atlantics were described as wearing zoauve pants in 1866.

Two drawings published in the New York Clipper suggested that the Cincinnati Red Stockings went zouave in 1870. See photos A and B.

And for those frustrated by the lack of imagery on New York’s Mutual team, we can now better understand the elaborate description of their 1870 uniform simply by understanding the Zouave aesthetic. The perplexing description was published May 30, 1870, and in part, borrowed from Shakespeare. One portion went as follows:

“The Mutuals donned their new dress yesterday […] sky blue pants that resembled the youthful hose well saved, by far too wide for their shrunk shanks.”

Sounds like Zouave to me. See the 1870 Mutual uniform here.

December 26, 2021 — Who wore the first baseball stirrups? We may now know.

In baseball fashion, there have been many “firsts” — the most famous being the 1867 Cincinnati club who were the first to wear knickers and exposed stockings in July of that year. And the photographs of the 19th century suggest many other fashionable “firsts.” For example, an image of noted pitcher Larry Corcoran of the 1887 Indianapolis team suggests he was the first to wear his collar styled up.

Now we have another “first.” A close examination of a 1900 Detroit team photo suggests that Tiger third baseman Doc Casey was the first to wear stockings with stirrups and white sanitary socks underneath (see detail view of Casey, below at left). The baseball strirrup was certainly an icon of the 20th-century game. And now we know who wore it first.

To see more about the 1900 Detroit uniforms, click here.

September 24, 2021 — Were they the most photographed minor-league team of the 1890s?

The St. Paul teams of the 19th century were certainly not camera shy. Recent discoveries by researchers Carson Lorey and Cary Smith tell us that the Apostles posed frequently for team photos, especially during the Comiskey years of 1895 to 1899, and that these images were often subsequently preserved in newsprint. These new finds also tell us that the visual universe of the early game is still expanding, and that there are undoubtedly more images to be found hiding in the printed resources of the day. We just need to keep digging.

New discoveries from the Saintly City:

1889: A new find of the Western Association team resplendent in shirts with lace ties. Bonus: boy on fence in background

1895: Another recent discovery — Comiskey’s first year in town and a fine early example of an image produced with halftone dots on newsprint

1897: Two wonderful finds, both with Comiskey in the middle and one with possibly a young J. Louis Comiskey as mascot

1898: The back row of this recent discovery featured renowned trainer Gus Guererro, who, according to newspaper accounts, had many skills

1899: There are three photos of the ’99 team — photos B & C are of superb quality, photo A (just discovered) not so much

June 5, 2021 — Examining the uniforms of the Western League of 1899

Baseball historians should say thank you to Charles H. Meyer. Meyer was a baseball fan, an entrepreneur, a team official and the ballpark superintendent of the Kansas City franchise of the Western League in the late 1890s. Between 1898 and 1900 Meyer arranged for multiple photos of visiting teams to be taken on the field at Exposition Park in Kansas City. At the end of each year, Meyer sold his photographs in albums as an “attractive souvenir” of the season, with each album offered up at one dollar. Today, these remarkable images show us the gritty life of the minor-league ballplayer of 1899. We see the forlorn expressions worn on their faces and the mismatched uniforms worn on their backs.

These photos also confirm that in 1899 the graphics of the game were changing. Uniforms with the city name across the fronts were suddenly out of fashion — vanishing much like the gloveless fielder and the square-shaped home plate. The new style was to wear only a representative initial or monogram on the shirt. Very understated and very 20th-century. (And cheaper to produce, too.)

Below is a team-by-team look at the uniforms of the Western League, with teams listed in order of finish in the standings:

1. Indianapolis (74-47). The Hoosiers were the best team in the league. So why not wear a fancy script “I” on the shirt pocket? See more here.

2. Minneapolis (76-50). The Millers wore a sans-serif letter “M” in the middle of their shirts. Well, at least some of them did. See more here.

3. Detroit (64-60). The Tigers wore an old-English “D” on their left breast. Sound familiar? See more here.

4. Columbus (63-62). The Senators wore a block-letter “C” on their shirt pocket. I wonder how the folks in Grand Rapids felt about this? See more here.

5. St. Paul (57-69). The Apostles wore the city name across their shirts. An out-of-fashion look that Comiskey would rectify in Chicago the following season. See more here.

6. Milwaukee (55-68). The Brewers wore their city name across the shirt as well this year — soooo 1895. See more here.

7 (tie). Buffalo (53-70). The Bisons wore their city name too — but this was counter-balanced nicely by an all-black uniform. See more here.

7 (tie). Kansas City (53-70). The Blues had BY FAR the best uniform in the league — all blue with a beautiful “K-C” monogram on the left breast. See more here.

February 27, 2021 — Visualizing a lost uniform: the Boston black of 1899

The all-black uniform was one of baseball’s more intriguing fashion statements. The trend started big in New York on July 28, 1888, when the Giants took the field in “stunning suits of coal.” The look spread quickly westward — to the Alleghenies, to the Plains, and to California — but eventually the fad would fade. Enter the 1899 Bostons and manager Frank Selee, who decked out his team this year in an all-black road uniform, augmented by scarlet stripes on the caps and socks. It seems there are no pictures of Boston’s men in black, so please allow Threads to bring this long-lost uniform out from the shadows of time.

See the Boston uniform here.

January 10, 2021 — A deep dive on a photo of some Beaneaters

The Boston NL teams between 1897 and 1900 must have been fun to watch, especially with the infield play of Tenney, Lowe, Long & Collins. Decades later, these four were still touted as one of the best infields ever. But the well-known photograph of the four raises a few questions: 1) what uniform was Bobby Lowe wearing on that day? and 2) where the heck was Lowe’s mustache? In our attempt to find answers, we have now discovered the true date for when this image was made. Like many things in history, the accepted date was not quite right.

See more here.

September 26, 2020 — Heading in the wrong direction: 1898 Cleveland

1898 was considered a bad year for Cleveland, one of the premier National League teams of the decade. Maybe it was the poor home attendance, or the inability to play Sunday games in Cleveland, or being forced to play 94 games on the road (vs. only 55 at home), or the endless speculation of a franchise shift? OR … maybe it was the 1898 uniforms? Look closely at the team picture, and specifically at the letter N in “Cleveland” sewn onto the shirts. You could certainly say that things were heading in the wrong direction for this team. Thankfully, there are no Ns in “St. Louis.”

See the uniform here.

June 26, 2020 — A few uni-stories from 1897

Previously I wrote about the odd-ball and super weird road uniform of the 1897 Boston NL team. But there are other uni-related stories from this year to tell. Here are a few (click on each link to see more):

Opening day is when you first open the box to take the uniform out.

“Opening day” was a disappointing one for the 1897 Orioles. The defending champs ordered socks with black-and-orange stripes in the style of the “old Orioles.” But the orange turned out to be “a very sickly yellow,” so Manager Hanlon “immediately wired for eighteen pair of solid black.” So much for tradition.

In Washington, the suits arrived in “big uniform boxes” which one newspaper noted the players then placed on their bicycles and “peddled serenely away.” The Senators changed the style of the “W” on their shirts in 1897, hoping for a few more “W”s.

The new St. Louis uniform did not delight. As an accent color, the Browns wore brown, of course, but the team’s finances were in the red. The new uniforms were described as the “cheapest thing in seven leagues” and were predicted to “shrink like a boiled sponge” in the first rain.

Window dressing in Indianapolis. The new uniforms of the Western League Hoosiers were proudly displayed in several clothing stores in town and featured something new from Spalding. Instead of “Indianapolis” on the home shirts, the letter “I” was used and displayed in a fancy script font. All in favor, say “I.”

The craft of baseball imagery.

The Phillies had a superb uniform in 1897, captured beautifully in a Leslie’s Weekly “photo drawing” (half photo, half painting) by Lewis L. Rouch. We see Nap Lajoie, bat in hand, standing at the plate in his Philadelphia uniform, with New York catcher Jack Warner and umpire Thomas Lynch behind him. All are clearly rendered.

Here’s a newly discovered gem. This beautiful newspaper illustration of the Houston team was made by artist Ole J. May. It shows the Buffalos of the Texas League in their striking dark blue uniform. Made from a photo by Charles Blackburn, but where is the original photo today?

There was a double exposure in St. Paul. True, many team photos have not survived, but we have two distinctly different images of Comiskey’s crew from 1897. One of these was photo-mechanically reproduced in the St. Paul Globe on April 30, 1897. A new era had arrived: baseball imagery was now on newsprint.

Here’s the background behind the photo, literally.

The setting for this photo of the 1897 New York team was the Lakewood Hotel, Lakewood, NJ., where the Giants lodged during spring training. Sweaters, old uniforms and a multitude of caps can be found. Manager Joyce had the men run the one-mile distance to the practice field every morning — and then the team would “sprint back to the hotel for luncheon.”

Lastly, the background behind these Syracuse players has turned black. Actually this was intentional and the work of Syracuse photographer Philip S. Ryder. Describing the photo in 1897, one newspaper said that the black background represented a “new idea” and that “every admirer of baseball should obtain a copy.” Agree or disagree?

March 27, 2020 — Putting a date to a well-known photo

Every once in a while, when a baseball photo get passed down from generation to generation and from historian to historian, the information behind the photo gets lost. This can be said of a well-known image of Cap Anson taken at the end of his career — a picture we’ve all seen a hundred times. But when was this photo taken? Is this information lost in the sands of time? Threads has discovered an answer to these questions, providing a date for the photo and the interesting backstory behind the image.
See more here.

February 7, 2020 — Boston’s short-lived road uniform of 1897

In uniform history, Boston was the most inventive team of the 19th century. They were first to put their city name on the shirt in 1871, first to have a true road uniform in 1886, first to reject the pillbox cap in 1891, and first to sew a letter onto their cap in 1894. But then, there was the Boston road uniform of 1897, described by some writers as “a marvel of ugliness.” Frank Selee designed it with a big, black baseball on the shirt, and after a 1-6-2 start in April, the superstitious Boston players black-balled the black ball. There are no known photos of this unique uniform, so its Threads to the rescue.
See the uniform here.

November 24, 2019 — An amazing photo from 1879

Researcher Carson Lorey emailed me the other day describing an “eye-popping” item up for sale at auction. And eye-popping it is! The item is a team photo of the 1879 Springfields of the National Association. A truly amazing image, full of many familiar faces. The Threads research network quickly unearthed more on this fabulous uniform, and now we can see how it looked in full color. A baseball treasure, long hidden, now available for all to see and enjoy.
See it here.

November 1, 2019 — A look at the uniforms and photos of 1896:

1896 Baltimore
There are two team photos of the 1896 Orioles wearing their classy road uniform. These photos were taken on the same day and within seconds of each other. But notice the little dog in the foreground. Since the animal did not move from one frame to the next, we can determine this toy dog was more toy than dog.
See more here.

1896 Boston
Two years earlier, in 1894, Boston wore a monogram on their cap, the first team ever to do so. In 1896 they simplified matters and wore a single old-English “B.” Several good views to look at.
See more here.

1896 Chicago
Chicago went all white in 1896, from stem to stern. Imagine how dirty this uniform got after a few spring games? Maybe that’s why they’re the Colts, not the White Stockings.
See more here.

1896 Cincinnati
Some teams in this era had a (real) pet as their mascot. In 1896 the Reds chose a recently captured (and slightly wild) ring-tailed monkey as their good-luck charm. What could possibly go wrong? Just ask the clubhouse superintendent.
See more here.

1896 Detroit
It seems there are no remaining photos of the first-ever old-English “D” worn by the Tigers this year. That’s where Threads comes in.
See more here.

1896 Page Fence Giants, Adrian MI
This barnstorming team’s uniforms were beautiful — and the first example I’ve seen where the pants had lace ties, not buttons.
See more here.

1896 Paterson NJ
Sometimes it’s the little things that help us date a team photo. In this case, the little thing was Ed Barrow’s mustache.
See more here.

1896 Philadelphia
The Phillies joined the trend of lettering their cap in 1896, placing “PBC” above the brim. Anyone know if the “BC” was for “Baseball Club,” or maybe simply “Ball Club?”
See more here.

1896 Toledo
The sweater-under-the-uniform fad was in full swing in 1896, so when Toledo gathered in the photo studio this year they were the first team to go totally turtleneck.
See more here.

1896 Washington
No championship for Washington in 1896, but a new team photo from that year has come to light — a win for historians everywhere.
See more here.

June 26, 2019 — Lost and found: the 1892 Nationals

In my email last month I asked the question: how many 19th-century team photos are lost? I speculated then that it is more than we realize. This came to mind again last week when researcher Ken Samoil sent me a newly discovered gem — one I’m sure none of us have seen before. It’s a team photo of the 1892 Washington Nationals, published in a Washington newspaper in 1924, some 32 years later. It’s easy to assume team photos like this never existed—but now we know they did, especially in the 1890s, and for almost every team and year. For the ’92 Nats, what once was lost is now found.

See the photo and uniform here.

May 3, 2019 — How many 19th-century baseball photos are lost?

The answer: maybe more than we realize.

This week, there are two new additions to the Threads Of Our Game project, both covering League Alliance teams from 1877. But these new posts made me think.

Both teams utilized the business model for baseball ownership in the mid-1870s: 1) build a ballpark, 2) hire professional out-of-town players, 3) charge admission and 4) most importantly to me, sell cabinet card photos of the players. The teams listed below seemingly did all of these steps. But, does this then suggest that almost every other team did as well? And if this is true, was there once existing photos of every League Alliance team in 1877? So I ask, how many have been lost to time? 60%? 75%?

1877 Auburn NY
One of the earliest examples of a professional team wearing a shirt with a yoke design, a look borrowed from the top collegiate teams.
See more here.

1877 St. Paul
It’s clear the Red Caps’ uniform was a product of Spalding & Bros. The pillbox cap, the unadorned shirt, the white stockings and the fancy shoes were all copies of the contemporary Chicago NL team.
See more here.

April 6, 2019 — eight uniforms from 1895

Here’s a look at 8 of the 12 National League uniforms from 1895. It was a big year for Baltimore, they won the pennant (again), lost the Temple Cup (again)—and on Emory Street, a bambino was born.

1895 Baltimore
The Orioles this year were enticed to wear black garters as a means to hold up their striped stockings. I wonder how much McGraw & Co. were paid to do so? Naturally, Spalding got on board with the idea and offered the garters at 25 cent a pair to teams everywhere.
See the uniform here.

1895 Boston
Throughout the 1890s, Boston was seemingly eager to give up their rich, red-stocking heritage. Of course, it was sacrilege not to wear red hose at home, but all bets were off on the road. For away games in 1895, Boston wore a subtle blue plaid and blue stockings.
See the uniform here.

1895 Brooklyn
The Grooms switched to a new cap in 1895, one with a rounded crown. Boston and Baltimore had introduced the style one year earlier but Brooklyn put their own spin on it in 1895—their cap had a slightly higher profile and decorative trim along the ribbing, the first to do this in several decades. Now, was the home cap white with black ribs, or black with white ribs?
See the uniform here.

1895 Cincinnati
The team photo of the Reds showed the players wearing white uniforms with the traditional red stockings. In the front row of the picture was their team mascot, a dog named “Trilby.” After learning the origin of the dog’s name, I wonder if Trilby was more svengali than mascot?
See the uniform here.

1895 Pittsburgh
Speaking of team pictures, have you ever wondered who the 7-ft tall player was in the middle of this 1895 Pittsburgh photo? It took a team of Threads researchers to correctly identify this oversized player and unravel the mystery behind the player’s name in the process.
See the uniform here.

1895 St. Louis
There was little information published about the Browns’ uniform of 1895. However photos recently up for auction in combination with known woodcuts from the New York Clipper and the Spalding Base Ball Guide now allow us to make a pretty good educated guess.
See the uniform here.

1895 Washington
Despite living in the second division, the Senators had an eye for fashion in the mid-1890s. The 1895 Washington team trotted out one of the first loose-cut uniforms in baseball history. Check out those baggy baseball pants! It was a look that would prevail until the early 1960s.
See the uniform here.

March 9, 2019 — taking a closer look at two famous photos

Threads Of Our Game takes a look at two 19th-century team photos that are very familiar to us: 1860 Excelsior and 1869 Cincinnati. Indeed, these are famous images of famous teams. But have you zoomed-in to take a closer look? Threads tries to answer the little mysteries within each photo.

1860 Excelsior, Brooklyn
A beautiful image for sure, but there’s very little photographic detail in the highlight tones of this print. So the question becomes: what exactly was Jim Creighton wearing that day? Had he discarded his bib before the photo was taken? Was there a wardrobe malfunction? Click the link and scroll through the photos for one possible answer.
Click here.

1869 Cincinnati
In the Ferdinand Huff photo from this year, both George Wright and Fred Waterman brought out the bling—they’re both wearing medals on their Cincinnati uniforms. Do you know why? For the back story on this “heavy medal,” click the link and see photo B.
Click here.

October 16, 2018 — Have you seen these?

Here are two recent photo discoveries that I’d like to share with you.

1894 Sioux City
The first discovery is a photo of the pennant-winning “Huskers” of the Western League. Researcher Carson Lorey has unearthed this beauty– a wonderful image of the team posing on the field in their home whites. Not only is this a gorgeous photo that includes visual documentation of many lesser-known players, but it also may be the only glimpse of the Sioux City home ballpark. Late in 1894, the franchise was bought by Charley Comiskey and moved to St. Paul for the following season.
See the uniform & photo here.

1868 Union of Lansingburgh
The second discovery may already be known by some of you. Getty Images has a great photo of what I believe is the 1868 Union team, who were better known as the Troy Haymakers (Getty dates the image as 1866). Many of these players have been documented and their histories are well known (i.e., Mr. Craver), but I love the fashion statement made by the team with their unbuttoned bibs. Was it too hot? Or were the players simply too cool? This may also be one of the first photos to include a team mascot (as in toddler good luck charm, not weird anthropomorphized animal).
See the uniform & photo here.

September 20, 2018 — Innovations from 1894

1894 was a good baseball year. The NL was back on its feet after enduring the Players’ League, a split season and the repositioning of the pitcher’s box. Three teams in 1894 each drew 300,000 fans (a big number back then). And, Baltimore emerged as the gritty, hard-nosed team that would define the decade.

It was a good year for baseball fashion, too. Here are four highlights:

Winging it — 1894 Baltimore
In October, the Orioles dressed in a new all-black uniform with orange accents. This outfit was created especially for the Temple Cup Series showdown with New York. The uniform also included a black “Eton” cap, which had a loosely-formed, rounded crown on top. As a bonus, the cap also displayed an orange oriole wing on the front. Decades earlier, baseball caps had stars on the top, but this Baltimore cap was the first ever to display a graphic based on a team’s nickname.
See the uniform and documentation here.

Some heady new gear — 1894 Boston
Speaking of cap innovations, in 1894 Boston first wore a new tight-fitting cap with a rounded crown. This cap also had a glorious “BBC” monogram (for Boston Ball Club) across the front, the first cap ever to display lettering above the brim. Spalding advertised this new round style as the “Boston cap,” and it marked the beginning of the end for the pillbox cap.
See the uniform and documentation here.

Drink it all in — 1894 Milwaukee
This Western League club wore blue ribbons on their road shirts in 1894, advertising none other than Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer. As one newspaper commented at the time, this was “not to show that the members of the team belong to a total abstinence society, but that they come from the city that makes the best beer in the world.” Accordingly, the team was briefly called the “Blue Ribbons,” and their manager added that the “boys will be given enough of the blue ribbon tonic to deserve the name.”
See the uniform and documentation here.

Something up their sleeve — 1894 Washington
The Senators wore an innovative uniform in 1894. At home the shirts were white, but the sleeves were blue. On the road the shirts were blue, but the sleeves were red. Seems the manager came upon the idea for these unique uniforms while attending the ballet. However, the press thought less of the idea. One writer described the uniforms as “unhappy mediums between the red flannels of winter and the blue bathing suits of the seashore.” Ouch.
See the uniform and documentation here.

July 4, 2018 — A great find from 1877

Here’s a great photo and a great find from researcher Ed Morton. It’s a photo of the 1877 Cricket team from Binghamton NY. Cricket was a League Alliance team that year and many of its members went on to play in Utica NY the next season. I’m not sure if this photo is known in baseball circles, but it may include visuals of a few previously undocumented players. But what’s really cool is the uniform. I’ve never seen anything like it—it takes a whole new angle on how to letter a shirt.

See the uniform here.

May 28, 2018 — Reading old baseball letters from 1894

Uniform letters, that is.

This week I have studied an 1894 photo collage of the Brooklyn National League team, shown below. This collage was printed in the Spalding Baseball Guide of 1895, and was comprised of 16 individual portraits of players dressed in uniform. Across each player’s chest was the word Brooklyn in arched block lettering. But this lettering spells out more than just the city name.

If you look closely, you will see that each “Brooklyn” was not like the other. In fact, one can detect four subtle yet distinct variations. I’ve indicated these variations with red boxes. Now, let’s zoom-in on each below:

–Uniform A was distinguished by a button that overlapped the vertical stroke of the second “O,” see arrow. Based on the players who wore this uniform (Foutz & Daly), an 1891 photo date can be suggested. See full uniform here.

–Uniform B was distinguished by slightly thicker and tightly spaced lettering when compared to uniform A. The second “O” ran along the edge of the shirt opening, see arrow. It also had a slightly wider letter “K” and no buttons overlapping letters. Based on the players who wore this uniform (Griffin & Kennedy), an 1892 photo date can be suggested. See full uniform here.

–Uniform C was distinguished by letters that were thicker and more square in shape than all other examples. Also, the second letter “O” was divided across the shirt opening, see arrow. Based on the players who wore this uniform (Daub & Sharrott), an 1893 photo date can be suggested. See full uniform here.

–Uniform D was distinguished by thinner lettering that was similar to uniform A, but with the second “O” divided across the shirt opening, similar to uniform C. Uniform D also had unusually wide letter spacing between the “O” and the “K,” see arrow. Based on the players who wore this uniform (Gilbert & Shindle), an 1894 photo date can be suggested. S ee full uniform here.

Visually speaking, the early 1890s were dark years. So far, I have seen little photo documentation on the Brooklyn uniform from this period. Now with one example, we know four years of Brooklyn uniform history.

May 6, 2018 — My top ten list

I recently compiled a list of the 10 most influential baseball uniforms of the 19th century. I did this for a presentation at the 2018 Frederick Ivor-Campbell SABR Conference at the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. For those that could not attend, here is the list.

I chose these ten uniforms because they represent important milestones in the evolution of baseball fashion. Each uniform was worn by a high-profile and winning team, which in turn led to the popularization of the style.

So here they are…the ten most influential uniforms of the 19th century, in chronological order:

Number 1
Uniform feature: The tucked-in coat
Team: 1856 Gotham, New York

In the fall of 1856, the Gotham team was photographed wearing white coats tucked tightly into dark waistbands. This tucked-in style was one of the first uniform trends in baseball—and as Gotham was one of the first teams in baseball, other clubs soon followed suit (pun intended).
See the uniform here.

Number 2
Uniform feature: The bib-front shirt
Team: 1860 Excelsior, Brooklyn

Between 1856 and 1860, Excelsior won more games than anyone. In 1860, they toured the New York countryside and played crosstown rival, Atlantic, in a series of over-crowded contests. It was then and there, in Brooklyn, that the bib-front shirt became synonymous with early baseball.
See the uniform here.

Number 3
Uniform feature: Knickers and stockings
Team: 1869 Cincinnati

Certainly the most famous team (and uniform) of the century, Cincinnati first wore red legs in 1867, borrowing the style from cricket. In 1869 the team was openly pro and openly unbeatable. By the end of 1870, almost every team that played Cincinnati went down in defeat, and afterwards almost every team switched up from pants to knickers.
See the uniform here.

Number 4
Uniform feature: City name on shirt
Team: 1871 Boston, National Association

It was a red-letter day for Boston when their team ran onto the field wearing the city name on their shirts. This was a first for baseball, implemented by a team that often finished first. Boston dominated the NA, but in spite of all this winning the style took ten years to really catch on. See number 8.
See the uniform here.

Number 5
Uniform feature: The pillbox cap
Team: 1876 Chicago, National League

Albert Spalding came to Chicago in 1876 to create a new league, and also a new style of cap. His sporting goods business, with a storefront first on Randolph Street, offered pillbox caps to teams near and far. The cap was often encircled with horizontal bands, and the cap would often encircle the heads of players well into the 1890s.
See the uniform here.

Number 6
Uniform feature: The unadorned shirt
Team: 1879 Providence, National League

The minor leagues arrived in the late 1870s with teams wearing bibs and monograms. It seemed top NL teams, like Providence, wanted to separate themselves from these lesser leagues. Providence wore a classy pearl gray uniform and a shirt with no words, no bib, no monogram, no nothing. For Providence, less was more.
See the uniform here.

Number 7
Uniform feature: The lace-tie shirt
Team: 1882 Chicago, National League

Uniform chaos was uniform in 1882. Spalding outfitted the entire NL, including his Chicago club, with shirts that were color-coded by position, not by team. A swing and a miss. However, the lace ties he included on these colorful shirts prevailed. Baseball gladly remained tied to this style for most of the next two decades.
See the uniform here.

Number 8
Uniform feature: City name on shirt (revival)
Team: 1885 St. Louis, American Association

The Browns spelled it out for everyone. They wore “St. Louis” on their shirts, won a lot of ballgames and flew a lot of pennants. They may have single-handedly revived the tradition of wearing the city name on the shirt. It became ubiquitous by 1890, just as it is today.
See the uniform here.

Number 9
Uniform feature: The road uniform
Team: 1886 Boston, National League

The road uniform evolved from the “mud” uniform of the early 1880s: a gray uniform designed for use during spring games. In 1886, Boston was the first to have a regular road uniform for the entire season. And by 1890 the roadie had become a National League mandate.
See the uniform here.

Number 10
Uniform feature: Black as accent color
Team: 1888 New York, National League

The color black quickly came into vogue in 1888 when New York first wore an all-black uniform. The Giants had a bunch of hall-of-famers, and soon a couple of championships, too. Even so, the all-black uniform created a sensation. Teams at all levels and regions copied the style. Suddenly, baseball was the new black.
See the uniform here.

March 10, 2018 — The uniform that got things backward

Researcher Carson Lorey recently submitted to the Threads Of Our Game project a great photo of the 1879 National team from Washington. The Nationals of 1879 played in the loosely organized National Association, a minor league that descended from the International Association of 1878. But, click on the link below and look closely at the photo. See anything odd? One might guess that the tailor working on these uniforms was not an educated one—as 6 of the 10 uniforms had the letter “N” sewn backwards onto the shirt bib. Backwards! How did this happen? Or more importantly, why was it not corrected? Were details like this so unimportant? Such was life in the lower ranks of 19th-century baseball, I guess.

See the uniform here. Be sure to scroll to see detail views of the errors.

January 6, 2018 — The story of two mysterious photos that have baffled me

A pitcher by any other name.
The first mysterious photo was of a player wearing an 1870s Boston uniform and with the photo caption of “Josephus.” A quick search of baseball-reference.com finds no one by that name. Dead end, right? But as some historians have discovered, Josephus was actually Joe Borden, a 21-yr old pitcher who was trying to conceal his baseball profession from his father. Borden usually went by “Josephs” and in fact appeared under this alias in box scores when he played for Philadelphia (NA) in 1875 and Boston (NL) in 1876. Borden was a fast thrower and has been credited with tossing the first professional no-hitter in 1875. He was a big signing for Boston to replace Al Spalding in 1876. However, Borden became ineffective and his career ended when he was released by Boston in late 1876. With the mystery of Josephus solved, we can positively determine that the image of Joe Borden is the first photographic documentation (in the Threads archive, at least) of the 1876 Boston uniform.
See the uniform and photo here.

If there is no record, did it actually happen?
The second mysterious photo was of Abner Powell and Chris Fulmer wearing uniforms that had “Chicago Unions” painted across the bib. The assumption being that Powell and Fulmer played for the 1884 Union Association team by that name. But again, a quick check of baseball-reference.com shows us that Powell and Fulmer played for the Nationals of Washington (UA) in 1884, not Chicago (UA). Something’s not right—another dead end? This mystery can be solved by the digital scans of The Sporting Life newspaper, which tell us there was also a Chicago Union team one year earlier in 1883. The 1883 version was an independent pro team that formed in June of that year with the dream of joining an established league in 1884. Powell, a promising pitcher, was the centerpiece of the plan, being lured away along with Fulmer, a catcher, from Providence (NL) after they both played in pre-season games there. As one might predict, the Chicago Unions soon ran into problems, especially when NL and AA teams refused to play at the Union Grounds and when several Union players subsequently deserted. The team disbanded in August 1883 and Powell and Fulmer went together to Peoria, IL, of the Northwestern League to finish the season. Except for the 1883 Peoria outings, Powell never played in any official league games that year and therefore had no records to speak of. Today, his short time with the Chicago Unions is usually not mentioned in biographies of Powell, who subsequently went on the become a successful and innovative minor league manager. The only record is the photo—a testament to Abner Powell’s lost year of 1883.
See the uniform and photo here.

December 18, 2017 — The Gotham “G”

I took a fresh look at the well-known (but often low-resolution) photo of the 1856 Gotham team. I have never liked the version where the background has been cutout. So I tried to marry the cutout version with the full background version to create a better-quality image that (maybe) matches the original.

In doing so, I suddenly discovered that the team wore a letter “G” on their collar points. I had always thought this item was a decorative medallion of some kind. But on my big computer screen I suddenly realized its true form. It’s a G!

See more about the Gotham “G” here.

September 10, 2017 — A look at 1891
After the flood of baseball imagery between the years 1886 and 1890, the year of 1891 has yielded only a precious few pictures. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t some good uniform stories to tell. Here’s a sampling from 1891:

1891 Brooklyn
A fan in Brooklyn in 1891 came up with an idea to better identify players on the field. One could say he (or she) was ahead of his time…about 70 years ahead.
See more here — scroll to written documentation.

1891 Chicago
Critics thought Chicago’s Cap Anson at age 39 was getting too old to compete on the field. They especially thought this when Anson played an official league game with a long, fake white beard—wait, what?
See more here — scroll to written documentation.

1891 Cincinnati (AA)
The ever-popular Mike Kelly organized an exhibition game in 1891 between his old team (Boston) and his new team (Cincinnati). The game was held in Boston, so naturally King Kel thought his “Killers” should wear…um…Kelly green.
See more here — scroll to written documentation.

1891 Cleveland
Tobacco companies decided to get out of the baseball card business in 1891. So, local portrait studios began to fill the void. But check out these 1891 Cleveland portraits. Looks like Cy Young let another player wear his shirt!
See more here — scroll to photo documentation.

1891 Louisville
One of the biggest pop stars of the 1890s was stage actress Sarah Bernhardt. Of course, Bernhardt never played for Louisville in a league game—well, actually, she kinda did.
See more here — scroll to written documentation.

1891 San Francisco
For their road uniform, this California League team looked like the Oakland A’s of the 1970s. But some old-timers thought the green dye in the uniform was poisonous. Turns out, they were right.
See more here — scroll to written documentation.

1891 Washington
The American Association was running on fumes in 1891 and subsequently, players were made to pay for their own uniforms. However, the brass of the new Washington franchise thought differently. Very un-owner like, I must say.
See more here — scroll to written documentation.

May 28, 2017

There was never a more mixed-up year in baseball than 1890. That year, the new Players’ League (officially the Players’ National League) began operation with franchises in top National League cities. Brotherhood teams signed the NL’s best players, had the support of the press, and scheduled games that interfered with NL games. To further supplant the evil empire, PL teams assumed the colors and identities of established NL franchises. That’s where Threads comes in.

Here’s a quick look at how the eight Players’ League teams borrowed from their NL rivals:

1890 Boston
The PL team copied the Boston NL team colors exactly, including use of the sacred red stockings, first worn in Boston in 1871. In 1890, both teams were dressed nearly identical, with only a few subtle exceptions: look closely at the shirt laces and the arch of the lettering.
See the uniforms

1890 Brooklyn
The PL team chose not to copy the Brooklyn NL team—instead, John Ward and company forged a new identity using light blue. The NL team, newly transferred from the AA and fresh off a championship, retained their traditional red.
See the uniforms

1890 Buffalo
There was no NL team to steal from in Buffalo, so the PL team followed the black & white uniform craze first started by the NL champion New York Giants of 1888. (Red and blue were suddenly passé). But, that’s where the New York comparison ended however, as Buffalo won only 36 games in 1890.
See the uniform

1890 Chicago
The PL team gobbled up what the Chicago NL team had cast aside a few years earlier—the famous white-colored stockings, first worn in Chicago in 1870. The NL team had become the Black Stockings by 1890 (probably not the best of marketing moves).
See the uniforms

1890 Cleveland
The PL team copied the black uniform of the Cleveland NL team, which first wore the “mourning” color in late 1889. Undaunted, the NL team carried on with their traditional blue color and both teams finished second to last in 1890.
See the uniforms

1890 New York
The PL team virtually cloned the New York NL team uniform in 1890 as both teams wore white at home with black stockings. Both teams also played on fields adjacent to each other and both teams were called the Giants (very confusing). There were subtle uniform differences however: note how one team wore larger letters and utilized shirt laces.
See the uniforms

1890 Philadelphia
The PL team decided to leave the Philadelphia NL team alone and instead raided the light blue color of the Athletic team of the AA. The Athletics had worn light blue in Philadelphia as early as 1866. The 1890 Athletics (AA) resorted to a dark blue accent color and the 1890 Phillies (NL) stayed with their traditional red. (Yes, there were 3 teams in town this year).
See the uniforms

1890 Pittsburgh
The PL team created a new identity using red. But then, it seems, they switched to black during the year (evidence is sketchy, so far). The Pittsburgh NL team, which had first worn black a year earlier, sailed on with black as well in 1890, even after most of their players jumped ship—a Pirates foreshadowing.
See the uniforms

March 5, 2017

Baseball moves closer with each warming day. So it’s a good time to see what’s new on Threads — the research project chronicling the uniforms of the 19th century. The year of focus is 1889. Highlights are below.

1889 Baltimore (AA)
The Orioles dabbled with orange and black in the early eighties, they returned to the scheme in grand fashion in ’89.
See the uniform

1889 Brooklyn (AA)
Their checked road uniform is a classic. See how it looks in color.
See the uniform

1889 Cincinnati (AA)
Slow start? Blame the uniform. See newspaper reports from May 1889.
See the uniform

1889 Denver (WA)
Love the decorative letter “D” – does anyone know what color these unis were?
See the uniform

1889 Louisville (AA)
After the blood-red uniforms in 1888, Louisville chose the “giddiest blue ever” in 1889.
See the uniform

1889 New York (NL)
Descriptions of the 1889 NY uniform are sketchy—except for the game played August 8th when the Giants had no uniforms at all. See written descriptions.
See the uniform

1889 Omaha (WA)
Stripes! The thicker, the better.
See the uniform

1889 Pittsburgh (NL)
Speaking of stripes, many thought the new black-and-orange stripes of Pittsburgh made the team look like convicts—maybe a slight over-reaction.
See the uniform

1889 Syracuse (IL)
Syracuse chose red in 1889, and paired it with light blue accents. Love it or hate it?
See the uniform

1889 Union & Resolute
An artist’s guess on two African-American teams from Chicago.
See the Resolute uniform
See the Union uniform

July 3, 2016

Hopefully you are celebrating our country’s birth with a relaxing 3-day holiday. One great way to kick back is to go back—all the way to the 19th century, and to when the game was young (and surprisingly colorful). Below are links to new uniform updates from 1888 posted to this website. Enjoy.

1888 New York
Reportedly the brainchild of Tim Keefe, the Giants introduced an all-black tight-fitting uniform on July 28, 1888—17 years before John McGraw had the idea. Scroll down to the written documentation to read the crowd reaction.
See the uniform

1888 St. Louis
The Browns had great looking uniforms in 1888—but the shirt lettering was sooo big, it was hard to see where the city name started and where it ended.
See the uniform

1888 Detroit
Detroit unveiled a pinstriped shirt in 1888, 24 years before the Yankees jumped on board.
See the uniform

1888 Washington
The Washingtons wore pinstripes too in 1888—but get out your magnifier, these babies were subtle.
See the uniform

1888 Philadelphia
The navy blue uniform trend was big in 1888. This same year, Philadelphia unveiled their famous “Phila” lettering—but it was almost hidden against the dark blue.
See the uniform

1888 Buffalo
The Buffalo team reportedly planned to wear a “bold and fearless bison careening over the bosom of each bold and fearless ball tosser” in 1888—if true, this was one of the first uses of a graphic symbol in over a decade.
See the uniform

1888 Louisville
The Louisville team of 1888 was horrible on the field in more ways than one. The team’s blood-red uniform was one of the most “hideous” in all of baseball. Just ask Preston Orem.
See the uniform

March 30, 2016

Opening Day is just around the corner. So, no better time than now to share with you some recent updates—from way back in 1887 and 1888:

1887 Boston, Kelly Special
At first, I was confused. Why, in 1887, was Mike Kelly wearing a uniform that looked more like his old team (Chicago) than that of his new team (Boston)? The answer lies with none other than Al Spalding.
See the uniform

1888 Athletic, Philadelphia
Quilted padding at the knees and hips were the new innovation in 1888. The Athletics wore padding down the entire leg. Click and scroll down to see photo D.
See the uniform

1888 Baltimore
The year 1888 also introduced the blue uniform fad. See how Baltimore sung the blues this year, and not just because of their win-loss record.
See the uniform

1888 Brooklyn
The 1888 Brooklyn team dressed fancy with their new red-checked unis—and they also went cheap-o with lace ties that weren’t long enough.
See the uniform

1888 Chicago (NL)
The White Stockings became the Black Sox in 1888 (for different reasons than in 1919)—-and the Chicago faithful almost didn’t recognize their team on opening day.
See the uniform

1888 Chicago (WA)
Speaking of Chicago, here’s one of the best uniforms of 1888, in my opinion. Too bad the Maroons didn’t make it to 1889.
See the uniform

1888 Cincinnati
Cincinnati revived the “parti-colored” concept in 1888. Once you know this, it’s easier to make sense of an odd-looking Old Judge card from this year. Click the link and look for the Baldwin card.
See the uniform

February 2, 2016

If you are already dreaming about pitchers and catchers reporting and want to see something other than football, then please take a look.

1887 Detroit
Detroit researcher Joe Gonsowski recently unearthed a written account of what could be the Detroit blue uniform as shown in the beautiful Scrapps cut-outs from that period. Click the link and scroll down to see all the info.
See the uniform

1887 Philadelphia
A much photographed team. It seems a few team members were beginning to break the established uniform codes by wearing their top button open at the collar, and by cutting-off their sleeves (radical!).
See the uniform

1887 Brooklyn
Pinstripes and dot patterns—this Brooklyn team led the league in style. Plus see a rare view of the back of an 1887 uniform.
See the uniform

1887 New Orleans
This team had big, bold lettering across the chest—which slowly was to become the standard by the 1890s.
See the uniform

Thank you for your time. I hope you enjoy the visuals and the supporting research found on these pages. Much of this information has been contributed to this project by an amazing team of baseball historians. If you are currently digging through newspaper archives and come across a written description or a photo of a long-lost uniform, please contact Threads Of Our Game. — CB