I wouldn't mess up that more or less pristine copy of the Dodgers pennant. But I might mess around with a beater if I could get one for the right price.

I'm 90% sure it's by Trench. They made other Dodger pennants, including photo pennants, in the early 1960s featuring their mark and the identical "LOS ANGELES" script.

I believe Trench also made travel pennants featuring the same "Scenes of Los Angeles" artwork during that era; and travel pennants in general for a host of different cities.

I suspect Trench planned to cut the window out and glue the photo from the reverse side; however, they just ran out of time. Stapling it to the front side must've been easier; however, as noted earlier, this modification left the photo obscuring much of the artwork.

Are my eyes that loud?? :)

This poses an interesting ethical question for the thread: If a pennant maker screwed up something during the manufacturing process, and you can fix it; and, actually succeed in enhancing the look of the pennant ... should you??

For example ... re-sewing faulty stitching caused by a lazy seamstress; removing paint splatter or color bleed caused by a hasty screen printer; re-securing a loose tassel or photo; or sharpening a blunt tip that was never sharp to begin with.

Discuss.

Having raised 2 daughters, I can guarantee that you can certainly hear eyes rolling:D.

I think it depends, only with respect to disclosure if you have to resell. Cleaning dirt of a pennant? That’s fine IMO. Carefully removing paint splatter? That, too. But trimming to make a pointy tip ... yeah that’s a no-no. Now I will say that the dreaded Ad Flags are notorious for wavy cuts, and while I generally avoid Ad Flags I do have a Colt 45s that looked like it was originally cut by an 8 year old with his art class scissors. And if anything the imperfections made it bigger. A straight edge and an exacto knife fixed it right up.

Loose tassels? No. Loose pictures? Yes. Elmers clear glue stick.

These pennants are awesome, Greg. And the ‘champions’ difference is so subtle, it’s amazing anybody would notice it. Any theories out there on the minor difference?

Thanks Erik. No idea. I would have figured, maybe they made a screen with just champions, and then revised it later. But they used two different screens, even though the word is positioned for an easy revision.

Blunt, torn or missing tip is my #1 pennant pet peeve. I just can't look past it unless we're talking about a pennant I may never see again. It's the first thing I look at when deciding to buy and I've bought plenty over the years that looked fine in the pics but once in hand, I could tell it had been sharpened. Never once was it disclosed and in fairness, many sellers wouldn't even know what to look for. It's also very hard to account for what every owner of a 70+ year old pennant did with it. There is no universally accepted pennant grading system. Most people judge a pennant on rarity and eye appeal. Though I will say, I've bought pennants from sellers who I know know better and yet it still wasn't disclosed.

Cleaning or removing stains is fine in my book. When you sell a car, do you disclose every scratch you buffed out?

As far as tassels and pictures...I don't see how you can differentiate one from the other. Why would it be ok to re-glue a loose picture, but not be ok to use a drop of fabric glue to secure a loose tassel?

As an aside, what techniques do you guys use for cleaning pennants? I'm too scared to clean a felt pennant because I think I'd ruin it. I have a 60s Tigers pennant that doesn't look anything close to the white it's meant to be. I'd love to give it a bit of a clean.

As previously mentioned, I thought the rendering on the left above Chinatown was the Grauman's Chinese Theatre, based upon only being able to see a sliver of the artwork not covered up by the oversized photo. But this thread made me rethink this, and because I was able to lift up the left side of the photo, I was able to determine that the building is actually City Hall, which back in 1963, was one of the few "skyscrapers" in LA.

Attachment 433843
Attachment 433844