Take a position on the 1939 Centennial of Baseball's Emblem

[da-bullman]

Beyond the obvious the 1939 Baseball Centennial Emblem was changed to satisfy Major League Baseball the question is why ?

Here what we know: Not much can be found as to when the process of selecting a suitable emblem began . The National Baseball Centennial Commission did unveil a per posed design in October 1938.
Ford Frick hired Steve Hannagan and Al Stoughton in the summer of 1938 to create a marketing campaign for a National Commission, during that time Hannagan held a contest for a design won by Marjori Bennett , so he claimed , and presented it to the officially formed Centennial Commission in Chicago in October 1938. The design was to remain embargoed until it's unveiling at the national meeting in New Orleans on the 5th of December 1938. Something happened after the unveiling of the emblem and the suggestion to create a patch to be worn on all Major and Minor league Teams Uniforms.Major League Baseball never publically specified , to my knowledge , the reasons for the change in the design or who created the new design featuring Caricature of a Batter. The Caricature Patch would be worn universally by all Professional Baseball Teams in the 1939 Season.
We also know of two exceptions the Philadelphia Athletics and the Baltimore Orioles who wore the Bennett design patch for the 1939 season. Their uniforms were manufactured by the Spalding Sporting Goods Company. Why the uniforms were not retrofitted to conform to the rest of Professional Baseball remains a mystery. So What do Think?
Check out my web site www.1939baseball.com for more information Thanks For Looking Steve


Patch worn by Athletics and Orioles embroidered on Twill
Patch worn by Professional Baseball embroidered on Felt

[Dave Grob]

Variations in size, materials, and subtle and obvious design changes suggests multiple manufacturers of the patch. What we see and don't see with respect to who wore what & when may simply be a function of who filled what orders with respect to time and volume.

Dave Grob

[da-bullman]

Most of the uniform manufactures did not make patches. However who authorized the change from the National Centennial Committee version of the patch to the Major League Baseball version of the patch and when. There is a story here ! The Patches that were made as souvenirs are of the National Centennial Committee Type. www.1939baseball.com Thanks for your comments Steve

[Dave Grob]

I wish you luck, but I think you are looking for something you may not to find the answer to. I still think what you are seeing is a supplier issue. You make the point about the A's and minor league Orioles wearing Spalding uniforms, but Spalding was still by far the dominant supplier of MLB uniforms at this time. What Philadelphia and Baltimore have in common, is more regional proximity than anything else.

If the logic is they wore Spalding uniforms, thus the "Spalding patch", then this is something you would expect to see as a manufacturer's characteristic as opposed to one with more of a regional focus (also, keep in mind that not all Spalding uniforms were manufactured at the same location).

Dave Grob

[da-bullman]

Dave your perspective is right on the money. But my Point is Major League baseball made a decision to change the emblem for their purpose. My question is why ? What was wrong with the original design ? No question the Athletics stayed with the original design. Have examined a 1939 uniform at HOF attached reference. The Major Leagues must have had differences with the National Centennial Committee regarding the appropriate use of their uniform and decorations applied to them. Would like to see that information!! All the Best you are a credit to Net54 Steve

[Dave Grob]

Steve,

First let me begin by saying I admire and respect your passion for the subject of the baseball centennial. Please know I am not trying to pick a public fight. Rather I hope you will take what I have to say in the truest spirit it is being offered in.

I ask that you might want to consider that there was no special decision on the part of MLB to change the design of the patch. I would also ask you to consider that the manufacturers of the uniforms were probably not the same organizations who produced the patches; rather they were out sourced for production and then sent to and applied by the uniform suppliers. As for a possible reason for the design change, it may have been a practical one with respect to ease in production on the part of the company(ies) making the patches as a function of time and volume of work.

If you compare the two designs, the second (batter looking to the left) would have been easy and quicker to produce as it is less intricate. In principle, it is really not a radical departure from committee design as all the basic and fundamental elements are in place so these slight changes may not have been seen as ones that required any sort of advanced approval.

The time between the 5 December 1938 unveiling and some teams wearing this patch in spring training of 1939 is not a lengthy one. This tight timeline works against a deliberate and contemplative process by MLB resulting in a decision/change of design that still supports an ordering, manufacturing, and delivery process, and even a greater need to get patches out to major and minor leagues teams post spring training.

Once again, just food for thought.

v/r
Dave Grob

[da-bullman]

Thanks Dave, I have been a memorabilia collector for more than 50 years and our hobby has always shared information. Before the Nationals I would travel to Willow Grove, The Arminian Church in NY, St. Louis, Plymouth MI. and Nashua NH. for stuff and stories. Its harder to do to find out why things are the way they are. Luckily there is Net 54 and folks like you who share. Thanks Steve