Originally Posted by bocca001 (Post 1977656)

Looks really good, Rob. Glad it worked out.

How did you protect the red? Did you tape something over it? Of just try to avoid getting the bleach on that area?

Originally Posted by Fballguy (Post 1977442)

Timely posts...I messaged a guy this morning about this pennant, which he just listed with a tidy asking price of $325 or best offer. He declares it original and having "hung in his father's office for as long as he remembers". I included these two pictures with my message, but as of yet, no change to the listing. I'd say the holograms date this to the early 90s at the oldest. The $35 asking price maybe early 2000s?

Originally Posted by Domer05 (Post 1977339)

If a pennant's graphics exhibit a raised velvet-like feel, then yes this is what they marketed as a flocked pennant. The process was used by a small handful of manufacturers beginning in the 1940s. Two companies in particular made it their signature design element: Collegiate Mfg. Co. and Chicago Pennant Co.

Collegiate of Ames branded pennants made using their flocking process as "Chromtone" pennants and marketed their pennants under this snazzy name. Chipenco followed suit; except they dubbed their flocking method "A Silvet Process." Despite the two names, they made their pennants the same way. Essentially, you screen on a base layer in white that's sticky. Then you dump a bunch of white "flock," i.e., ground felt dust, atop the pennant. The flock is then cured to the pennant via a heat treatment. The excess flock is removed. Finally, the secondary colors are applied via block-out stencils to the design.

The main advantage to flocking is that the graphics will never crack like they will on a screen printed pennant, using screen printer's paints.

Today, Collegiate Pacific still utilizes this premium production method on all of their felt products.

Originally Posted by ooo-ribay (Post 1977271)

I wonder if that "velvet-like" feel would be known as "flocking"? Flocking is applying very short fibers to adhesive. I have a similar pennant without the velvet feel. I always assumed mine was 1970s and should have been licensed but was not.

P.S. this is not a pennant you see very often. I can't remember the last one I saw...

Originally Posted by Domer05 (Post 1977695)

Any chance these flocked pennants from the 1970s are in fact Mitchell and Ness reproductions from the 2000s?

Other than M&N's pennants, all of which were reproductions, the only other MLB pennants I can think of made with flocked graphics were the four 3-D pennants made by Collegiate of Ames in the 1950s for the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, and Red Sox.

I just find it odd that this manufacturer would make a flocked version for one or two teams; then screen print the others the conventional way for the remaining teams.

Additionally ... I don't recall the Dodger version of this style--which I recall being screen printed--featuring tassels. Do the tassels on the above Expos and Phillies pennants not resemble the M&N tassels we discussed last week, i.e., placed closer to the center?

Originally Posted by Domer05 (Post 1957229)

Wow, very interesting ads. That's exactly the kind of evidence you need to make your case.

Any idea when those ads were run??

Now we'll have to find the other six AL city/team pennants.

Originally Posted by Domer05 (Post 1978035)

Wow, I had not realized that these pennants were all sewn letter--not screen printed. Historically, most promotional pennants were of lower quality since they were basically given away, i.e., no tassels, no spines, smaller sizes. As the ad claims, these really were $0.75 pennants for the day--for only $0.15.

I'm kind of surprised nobody bid for the lot. The auction house did a great job of researching this series and establishing their provenance as legitimate baseball pennants from 1913.