This is one of those pennants that is 100% cloth, including the spine and tassels. And that raises yet another question! Even when the cloth pennants came into style, they still used mostly felt for the appendages. (By cloth I mean the thin material that frays and fades but doesn’t get moth eaten.) I wonder why the 100% cloth pennants are so rare.

Agree, Greg!

In terms of its great graphics, important year, creative way to scroll the names, and the insane rarity... that’s a Top 5 post-war pennant for sure.

Beautiful!!! The Emmet Kelly pennants are just stunning and I love him with the crown.

Mark, those are great pennants. O'Malley wanted to distance the team from any connection to the old lovable Bums of Brooklyn, the name resulting from them always losing the WS up until 1955. He felt the move to LA needed to be focused on a successful team if they were going to have any chance of surviving here. Most people don't realize that the move wasn't popular to a lot of folks in LA, and a public referendum allowing Chavez Ravine to be swapped to O'Malley so he could build the new stadium was nearly defeated. So the Bum had to go, and the Dodgers had to be identified as winners. Kind of surprising the Bum resurfaced in 1963 on a pennant. I've seen that pennant, never noticed that it has the Sportsservice symbol on it.

Related to your post, I recently picked up the pennant below. I remember prior posts about how the same artwork was used for many different teams, just the names and colors were changed. Does anyone know if the little guy throwing the ball on this pennant was used for other teams (of course with a different logo on the hat)?

Rick

Attachment 376083

I’ve never really understood the “cloth vs. felt” thing either. I personally prefer the true felt because it has a richer look. But the two styles had a huge decade-long overlap, so perhaps it just came down to which material was cheaper to buy in bulk at the time.

I think we sometimes over-analyze this stuff. But I guess that’s part of the fun in collecting.

That said... I hate all of the loose threads that stick out along the borders of the cloth style pennants. Does anyone else trim these off? Hope it’s not considered an alteration, as I’ve been know to trim off a thread or two. And I know I could get them past PSA (if they slabbed pennants, that is!)

See I absolutely LOVE the cloth pennants provided that they are not faded. They just have a great feel to them. And yes I clip off the loose threads. And if you think we over-analyze ... pull up the “Show Me Your Print Variations” thread on post-war baseball card forum. I don’t collect cards but I like reading it. Incredible what they discover ...

Rick: is this the one to which you referred?

Rick-

Thanks! That’s great information about O’Malley, the rejection of the Bum, and the early reception of the Dodgers in the LA market.

As for your Dodgers pennant... that’s a rare version and very undervalued, IMHO. The Dodgers had a lot of Chavez Ravine variations, with that being perhaps the rarest. And that little midget mascot was never used by any other team, to my knowledge. I would’ve seen him by now!

Here’s another guy that’s completely unique to the Dodgers. Much more common pennant, but still a cool ‘60’s mascot...

Yes Greg, that's the one! Always loved that pennant, wish they did more with the bum.

Rick

I agree. The stitching is modern, but it looks well done and I have not seen it before. Almost looks like a foreign made piece.