Obvious repro, 100%

I agree 100% repro. Also, the colors are wrong in the bird and the “years” are a tell tale sign.

New acquisition ... the Yankees pennant. Common design of course but the condition is virtually perfect and the colors really striking. Hard to find a stadium pennant where the grass is actually green ... seems like you only see it elsewhere in Comiskey/Sox Park pennants. I guess the green paint faded easily?

Additionally this pennant is 100% cloth, including spine and tassels. The LA Dodgers pennant (which I’ve had) is similar. They seem to be better quality, double stitched like Keezer so that the threads and tassels don’t come lose. So I wonder if this Trench or a well made knockoff.

Looks to be by Mitchell and Ness. For what it's worth, however, Mitchell and Ness has made reproductions featuring the original concessionaire's marks, such as the Sportservice baseball mark.

The felt looks to be way too soft/plush to be the original. It's also super clean. And, I'm not aware of Trench ever making any commemorative pennants, such as this, for a former ballpark. That's a Mitchell and Ness thing for a modern-day consumer.

I can't tell for sure but I'll bet you the graphics are flocked....

I've been doing the same thing, Greg....

Since vintage pennants have dried up, it's near-impossible to acquire new ones. So I have been upgrading some of my old "Stadium" Pennants. The grass on many of them typically faded to pale yellow over the years, so finding those green ones is a real treat. I just recently found my favorite version (Mr. Red over Crosley Field), but it's hung up in "Postal Hell" right now.

Separate note... I do believe your Uncle Sam Yankees is a knockoff (and not Trench). The tassels are clearly different, as is the artwork. When you put them side by side, it's very clear.

Yes I think you’re right, but the differences seem a little bit more subtle to me. Like with uncle Sam his eyes are a little bit different. Everything else seems pretty darn close, almost within production variability. I think it’s a matter of the tassels and spine being cloth and also the way it was stitched that suggests a different company. The strange thing is that this is extremely well made from vintage cloth (I don’t recall any reproduction on cloth.) Colors are crisp and precise. Now compare that to the LA Dodger Emmet Kelly pennant pictured that looks sloppy.

I wonder if this is the Reds pennant you’re waiting on? One of my favorites, even if Crosley is just one big gray blotch.

Yes you're right, Greg...

Those two Yankees pennants are much closer than I had remembered. It's the difference in the paint they used, more so than the design. The Trench knockoffs lean more towards an opaque "neon" quality than the deeper, more traditional paint used by Trench. And Trench had a higher quality screening process. The Trench graphics have superior definition and the registration is much more crisp and well-defined, with less bleeding.

Some examples of same design/different paint/inferior screening below...

In the Pirates example, the Forbes Field artwork is identical (although AdFlag changed the Pirate quite a bit- note his body, arms and hands are identical, but the head is different). And note AdFlag's blurry face, mound and foul lines.

In the Reds example, AdFlag copied both Crosley Field and Mr. Red verbatim. You'd think there would be legal consequences, but perhaps the intellectual property laws were different back then. And note how much more precise / better defined the face and stadium are in the Trench version.

On second look, I do see one difference in the AdFlag Reds Pennant.... The puff of smoke at the end of the bat is bigger.

Comparing these pennants is a lot like those "Find the Difference" pictures in Highlights Magazine.

I spoke to Mr. Storm last month about Trench's screen printing process; and, how he felt about other makers stealing their designs. His answers were very surprising....

https://pennantfever.weebly.com/blog...torm-interview

Great article, Kyle....

It's interesting that Mr. Storm had so little reverence for the actual product they manufactured. Seems almost unthinkable that he was solely focused on profits, to the point that he cared so little for the product itself. Obviously he was 100% businessman, and 0% collector. The CEOs of today routinely tout and purport to love the products that their companies put out.

It's also amazing that he said Trench employed only two artists, and pretty much downplayed their work, to the point of just tracing photographs. It's a shame that he could not come up with either of the artists' names, as their work was so well executed, and was such an influential part of so many childhoods.

Anyway, I learned a lot, and really appreciate the time and effort you put into gathering this information (which would otherwise be lost to time and undocumented). Great job as always!