Tweet
I recently picked up a very intriguing item, and I'd like to hear from anyone with an opinion (I KNOW I'm inviting trouble there!
) This looks to be a 1961 or 1962 Washington Senators home flannel jersey; I didn't pay a huge amount for it, so even if it turns out to be some sort of replica, it was probably a good buy. If it's the real thing, then it was an AMAZING buy!
The dealer thought that it might have been a movie prop, perhaps for "Damn Yankees." I doubt that, since that movie and most stage productions use the classic block "W" that was emblematic of the old Senators. I'm unaware of any movie that utilized the "new" Senators. And the shirt seems contemporary, rather than a latter-day mock-up
As you can see, the shirt is in very nice condition. The thickness of the fabric and the color seems consistent with a fifty-year-old shirt. The shirt shows little or no wear. There's no secondary tagging, no name in the collar or in the tail. The only tag is a McAuliffe tag with a size tag to one side, and some frayed fabric where a year tag might have been removed. That area also shows some faint color variation that would be consistent with a year tag having been removed.
The collar had the size (44) written in laundry marker, as well as the number 8 and a question mark, written upside down. The jersey has the number 8 on the back. The lettering on the front and the number on the back have vivid colors, but the material is soft, so it seems to have been laundered a few times.
So, what do I have here? The lack of embroidered tagging is always a bit disquieting, but if it was normal for the Senators during this period, then that's okay. McAuliffe is a troublesome manufacturer, because of all of the retail shirts they sold in the Seventies and Eighties. But I'm unaware of their having done that during the flannel era. The lack of a year tag is unfortunate, but not uncommon in older shirts, as it may have been sent to the minors or otherwise reused.
In 1961, the "new" Senators' inaugural year, #8 was Pete Daley, a career second-string catcher in his final season. He got into about 70 games, so I assume about half of them were at home. If he was issued two home and two road shirts, that would add up to 15 to 20 games for this shirt. In 1962, this number went unissued, which might account for the general lack of wear. It might have been a standby shirt that was prepared for a possible late season newcomer but never actually used.
Is the McAuliffe tag consistent with this era? Is there anything else the shirt should or shouldn't have? What does everyone think?
You opinons are most welcome.
Alan Kleinberger
) This looks to be a 1961 or 1962 Washington Senators home flannel jersey; I didn't pay a huge amount for it, so even if it turns out to be some sort of replica, it was probably a good buy. If it's the real thing, then it was an AMAZING buy! The dealer thought that it might have been a movie prop, perhaps for "Damn Yankees." I doubt that, since that movie and most stage productions use the classic block "W" that was emblematic of the old Senators. I'm unaware of any movie that utilized the "new" Senators. And the shirt seems contemporary, rather than a latter-day mock-up
As you can see, the shirt is in very nice condition. The thickness of the fabric and the color seems consistent with a fifty-year-old shirt. The shirt shows little or no wear. There's no secondary tagging, no name in the collar or in the tail. The only tag is a McAuliffe tag with a size tag to one side, and some frayed fabric where a year tag might have been removed. That area also shows some faint color variation that would be consistent with a year tag having been removed.
The collar had the size (44) written in laundry marker, as well as the number 8 and a question mark, written upside down. The jersey has the number 8 on the back. The lettering on the front and the number on the back have vivid colors, but the material is soft, so it seems to have been laundered a few times.
So, what do I have here? The lack of embroidered tagging is always a bit disquieting, but if it was normal for the Senators during this period, then that's okay. McAuliffe is a troublesome manufacturer, because of all of the retail shirts they sold in the Seventies and Eighties. But I'm unaware of their having done that during the flannel era. The lack of a year tag is unfortunate, but not uncommon in older shirts, as it may have been sent to the minors or otherwise reused.
In 1961, the "new" Senators' inaugural year, #8 was Pete Daley, a career second-string catcher in his final season. He got into about 70 games, so I assume about half of them were at home. If he was issued two home and two road shirts, that would add up to 15 to 20 games for this shirt. In 1962, this number went unissued, which might account for the general lack of wear. It might have been a standby shirt that was prepared for a possible late season newcomer but never actually used.
Is the McAuliffe tag consistent with this era? Is there anything else the shirt should or shouldn't have? What does everyone think?
You opinons are most welcome.
Alan Kleinberger
Attached Files
Comment