Mitchell and Ness Mets items

[Doodles]

I used to think Mitchell and Ness was very interested in authenticity. I have an early Mets Home 41 that is very accurate in detail. They even had a road version with the correct 1969 road fonts. What has happened?

1) They are now using a weird looking font for the home front number (too thin, not shaped right) and the script looks off (too thick and possibly crooked M script the Mets use today).

http://shop.mlb.com/product/index.js...452830.1164746

2) The road 1969, which used to have a close to accurate varsity font, now has something close to the home font and even it looks incorrect for the home font.

http://shop.mlb.com/product/index.js...452830.1164746

3) They insist Tug McGraw wore 56 at some point...even if he did, no Met fan associates Tug with that number and nobody is going to buy it...though on that one they put the right font!

http://shop.mlb.com/product/index.js...452830.1164746

4) The NY logo here is not even close to being accurate

http://www.mitchellandness.com/Produ...17-86METS.aspx


What is going on with them? Are people buyng this stuff anyway?

[TNTtoys]

With Mitchell and Ness, it's hit or miss. Some of their stuff is dead on, and some leaves me scratching my head. The all time classic is the 1978-1982 Giants logo which doesn't even remotely resemble what was worn on field. Sadly, when the Giants did turn back the clock games in Mitchell and Ness jerseys, they wore this odd looking logo in those games.

Regarding the Mets stuff... the 3 that I especially got a kick out of were:

1. The original version of the 1983 road alternate. They made this one as Tom Seaver, only. The name on back was wrong font and size. The sleeve stripes were about triple the real thickness. The kicker was that the neckline and sleeve stripes had white trim, not gray. This came out looking like a Frankenstein hybrid of the alternate and the BP.

2. The "1984 BP" -- which was made with just Strawberry. Apart from the material being very heavyweight solid polyester (whereas by 1984, the Mets were wearing mesh), the style jersey (interlocking NY on the front) was only worn during one season -- 1983.

3. Any green 1985 St. Patrick's Day jersey they ever made -- these were made also of durable solid polyester. Unfortunately the real ones were mesh, and to boot, the real ones never had names on the backs (whereas Mitchell and Ness jerseys do).

[TNTtoys]

3) They insist Tug McGraw wore 56 at some point...even if he did, no Met fan associates Tug with that number and nobody is going to buy it...though on that one they put the right font!

Tug did wear #56; however, it was during Spring Training. If M&N wanted their Tug McGraw to be accurate, they would have used the regular season number.

Also... did you see any other discrepancy with the 1964 flannels? There's a glaring error with these.

[Doodles]

Tug did wear #56; however, it was during Spring Training. If M&N wanted their Tug McGraw to be accurate, they would have used the regular season number.

Also... did you see any other discrepancy with the 1964 flannels? There's a glaring error with these.

Don't see them for sale at this time...home or road?

[Doodles]

2. The "1984 BP" -- which was made with just Strawberry. Apart from the material being very heavyweight solid polyester (whereas by 1984, the Mets were wearing mesh), the style jersey (interlocking NY on the front) was only worn during one season -- 1983.

They have a respectable 1986 Mesh BP now...only problem is the front numbers are a bit thin.

http://www.mitchellandness.com/Produ...7-KHERN86.aspx

[Insomniac186]

With Mitchell and Ness, it's hit or miss. Some of their stuff is dead on, and some leaves me scratching my head. The all time classic is the 1978-1982 Giants logo which doesn't even remotely resemble what was worn on field. Sadly, when the Giants did turn back the clock games in Mitchell and Ness jerseys, they wore this odd looking logo in those games.

The caps were awful too. New Era just used a flattened version of the current cap logo, and green undersides (they had switched to gray in the early 70s).

Because of all these different variations in accuracy with Mitchell & Ness, it's hard to tell which ones are real fake bootlegs, especially on eBay.

[metsmetsmets]

Tug did wear #56; however, it was during Spring Training. If M&N wanted their Tug McGraw to be accurate, they would have used the regular season number.

Also... did you see any other discrepancy with the 1964 flannels? There's a glaring error with these.

I'm skeptical that Tug wore "56" in Spring Training. And if he did, it couldn't have been in 1965, the year of the M&N Tug "56" jersey. In 1965, the Mets introduced numerals on the front of jerseys. However, the Mets did not wear their regular season 1965 jerseys in Spring Training. During Spring Training '65, the Mets wore 1964 jerseys -- without any number on the uniform front. M&N's history behind their Tug 56 jersey is questionable, perhaps even revisionist in order to justify what M&N came to learn was a mistake.

[Doodles]

I'm skeptical that Tug wore "56" in Spring Training. And if he did, it couldn't have been in 1965, the year of the M&N Tug "56" jersey. In 1965, the Mets introduced numerals on the front of jerseys. However, the Mets did not wear their regular season 1965 jerseys in Spring Training. During Spring Training '65, the Mets wore 1964 jerseys -- without any number on the uniform front. M&N's history behind their Tug 56 jersey is questionable, perhaps even revisionist in order to justify what M&N came to learn was a mistake.

Even the biggest Tug McGraw fan in the world is not going to buy a #56 jersey...they would want 45...this makes NO sense. Anybody want to start a company with me that makes real authenic replicas?

[TNTtoys]

They have a respectable 1986 Mesh BP now...only problem is the front numbers are a bit thin.

http://www.mitchellandness.com/Produ...7-KHERN86.aspx

I give up... The 1987s are all wrong too. The road jerseys, while they have the correct script, have untextured/flat letters that ceased in 1986. The 1987 BPs have stripes down both sides in addition to the correct shoulder stripes. The Mets NEVER wore side stripes on BP jerseys.

Regarding my question on the '64 flannels... The front numbers which appeared on these M&Ns were wrong because front numbers were not added until '65. Also, for the keen eye...the patch is on the wrong sleeve!

[Doodles]

Didn't notice the sidestripes...that is really stupid...it cost them more to make the jersey, just to make it more inaccurate.