Quote:
Originally Posted by thetahat
Counter argument:
If the “insert ballpark name” pennant was made by Trench, then Trench made the top two pennants pictured below in the same year for the same team. They share nothing in common. Not the texture of the felt, the spine, the stitch, the graphics, etc. all very different. The middle two share everything in common and seem obvious to be from the same company. ‘51 Cinderella Boys Giants is also a match and has a very different scroll graphic than what Trench uses. Bottom is Trench.
All are full-size.
|
I dunno, those top two look similar to me.... Same serif letter font used. Both have tassels. Both are polychromatic. Obviously, they're different styles/sizes, but there's nothing
inconsistent about them. (I'm not convinced that stitching characteristics are a reliable indicator of a pennant's origin.)
I think by 1950 the "insert ballpark name" series was rather tired and being phased out. It had enjoyed a good run. Scroll pennants were the new fad, and Trench (along with others) went all-in on them. Same with full size pennants. These two 1950 pennants simply illustrate that transition point, for me.
Why wouldn't Trench (or whoever you think made these) make more than one NL champs pennant for a team? This enabled them to offer both a 3/4 and a full size pennant, presumably at different prices. That makes perfect business sense to me.
Regarding materials used, we also know that Trench was an innovative company, and they certainly experimented with new production techniques and materials throughout the 1950s. Sometimes they used 100% wool felt; mostly they used a wool/rayon blend; and they even tried that flannel-like cloth material for a time, too. So, for me,
if the materials truly differed, this may explain why.
I agree that the bottom one is by Trench. The third one, however, I believe is by AMCO. (I also believe that AMCO is the maker of the double-wide scroll pennant you referenced. I'll have more to say about that later on
Pennant Fever when I cover them.)