1882 Color-coding System
1882 was a year unlike any other for baseball uniforms. Not even the double-knit decades of the 1970s and 1980s could compare to the craziness of 1882. Many historians know of the color-coded shirts and caps worn that year by the National League. However, the full story of the uniform’s arrival and subsequent rejection has seldom been thoroughly told. With the help of researcher Ed Morton, Threads of Our Game takes a closer look at the tumultuous year of 1882. Enjoy.
Send in the clowns.
As you can see by the renderings above, the uniforms of the National League in 1882 were rather unusual. It’s true, some newspapers labeled them “clown costumes,” as well as many other things.
SO, WHAT’S GOING ON HERE?
The basic explanation is this: players on all eight NL teams were mandated by the league to wear color-coded shirts and caps to signify their position on the field. The shirts and caps did NOT identify the team, and no two players on the same team dressed alike.
UM, COME AGAIN?
Yes, as an example, all first basemen on all eight teams dressed in identical red-and-white striped shirts and caps –– and every other player on the field would dress in his own unique color-coded shirt. The only article of clothing to identify a player’s team was the socks, where each club had its own specified color — see renderings above.
Dated April 1882 to early June 1882, probably May 20-23, 1882. Studio image of the Detroit team of the National League wearing color-coded uniforms. The circle insets, added by Threads, identify the players’ positions. Original photo by the Chicago Photographic Studios, Photo-Mechanical Printing and Publishing Company, Chicago. The studio props and backdrop in this photo (pedestal, trees) were similar to those found in photos of the Troy and Worcester teams from 1882, suggesting that it was arranged for each NL team to be photographed wearing the colorful uniforms when visiting Chicago. Unfortunately, the black-and-white photography of the day reduced the vibrant colors of the uniforms to somber shades of gray. Has anyone ever tried to colorized this image and bring it back to life?
SO, WHY COLOR-CODING?
One newspaper at the time said the system “was adopted for giving players an individuality.” Another commented that “it makes it an easy matter to distinguish the man at bat.” Translation: the system helped to identify players on the printed score card, which then may have helped to sell more score cards. Think of it as the precursor to the early 1930s when the majority of ballplayers first wore identifying numbers on their backs.
From a “fertile brain.”
The color-coding idea came from sporting-goods magnate and Chicago team executive Albert G. Spalding (1850-1915). According the one newspaper in late 1881, Spalding had the idea “fermenting in his fertile brain for several years.” He had first color-coded his Chicago team in 1876, but now he aimed to do so for the entire league. The idea was presented and, remarkably, agreed upon by all eight representatives at a league meeting in Chicago on December 9, 1881. The agreement bound “the members in all championship games [i.e., regular-season games] during the season of 1882 to present their nines in the uniforms prescribed.”
Left: dated November 22, 1879, woodcut of Albert Spalding, published in the New York Clipper on this date. Right: dated June 5, 1880, advertisement for A. G. Spalding & Bros., published in the New York Clipper on this date. The 1880 Spalding ad, at right, noted both the location of the factory (Hastings, Michigan) and the company store (118 Randolph St., Chicago. In 1881, the store moved to 108 Madison St., Chicago, and a few years later they opened a second store at 241 Broadway, New York). The ad promoted baseballs, gloves and masks, but interestingly makes no mention of uniforms. Subsequent ads in the New York Clipper in 1881 and 1882 promoted only the Spalding Base Ball Guide, published annually. There was no mention of uniforms in any of these ads, however the Guide itself did have a large Spalding ad touting uniforms for baseball, cricket and lawn tennis.
Not surprisingly, the color-coded uniforms were a major-league fail — and discarded by mid-season. Below are three reasons why:
Strike one: the look of the new uniforms.
When Spalding color-coded his Chicago teams in previous years, only the caps carried the individual colors. The remaining uniforms were generally white, see renderings from 1876, 1877 and 1879. The wide vertical stripes and bold colors of the new shirts in 1882 had never been seen on a National League field before. This may be the main reason why the players immediately disliked the new uniforms, and soon they banded to reject them.
One outspoken player was Buffalo’s Jim O’Rourke. When the uniforms arrived in the first week of April 1882, the player/manger was indignant about the idea of dressing his players “like a lot of fantastics — making clowns out of professional base-ball players!” The Buffalo players, at first, refused to wear the new uniforms in exhibition games, determining to “put off the evil day as long as possible [and to] not wear the so-called suits until compelled to in a [regular-season] League game.”
When Providence first marched onto the field wearing the new uniforms in an exhibition game on April 5, they were met with “a grand shout of laughter from the crowd.” Embarrassed, Providence second basemen Jack Farrell reportedly “kept on his old gray knit jacket [from a previous season] until the game was about half over, when he became so warm that he had to doff the cardigan. Then the laugh was turned on him, for he bloomed out in a blouse of bright yellow and black, and as he danced about looked like a huge ‘yellow-jacket’ wasp.”
The Detroit team played an exhibition game at home on April 8. The local paper alerted fans that day, saying “the new uniforms will be worn, and it will be worth the price of admission, twenty-five cents, to see the rainbow hues.”
Indeed, newspapers had no shortage of descriptors for the color-coded uniforms in 1882. In addition to clown costumes, they labeled them as parti-colored suits, zebra suits, convict suits, caricature suits, potato-bug uniforms, and song-and-dance uniforms. They compared a team’s appearance to that of an animated bouquet and a kaleidoscope, to that of circus performers and overgrown schoolboys, to Canadian militiaman, jackasses turned out to pasture, and a burlesque opera troupe. One writer disparagingly asked if the outfits could “be sold to some fancy masquerade costumer.”
The system could also be, at times, confusing. In Troy’s first regular-season game on May 1, a newspaper reported that several players were wearing the wrong uniforms, noting that “the Troy pitcher and catcher wore bright green and brown blouses, having through some misunderstanding put on those which are to be worn by substitutes only.”
Only a few days into the season the Cleveland Leader summed it up best, saying on May 4 that “the uniform is universally commented upon and condemned. None feel more sensitive over the situation than the players themselves. The sentiment will be overwhelmingly in favor of the repeal.”
By the end of May, the Detroit and Providence teams started to “circulate a paper” with the hope of overturning the league mandate. By June 14, two additional teams, Boston and Worcester, signed it. Spalding’s Chicago team, it seems, did not sign the petition. Amazingly, the owners complied and on June 18, at a special league meeting in Detroit, they “voted unanimously to allow each club to select its own colors and material for uniforms for the remainder of the season.” Providence didn’t wait however, “laying aside the zebra suits” one day earlier in a game on June 17. Chicago was seemingly the last to switch, not discarding the color-coded uniforms until a game on July 11.
QUESTION. WHY WAS ALBERT SPALDING SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE TASTES OF THE PLAYERS?
Though a former player himself, it seems that Spalding had little understanding of the likes and dislikes of the men. Despite being at the center of baseball fashion, the vertical stripes and bold colors were clearly a misjudgment — by both Spalding and team owners.
Dated 1882, possibly April 1882 to early June 1882. Studio portrait of the Chicago team, Spalding’s National League team, looking somewhat glum about wearing their color-coded uniforms. The players were photographed dressed in color-coded jackets worn over their color-coded shirts. To date, no reports have surfaced to confirm that other teams in the NL also had color-coded jackets in 1882. Original photo by the Chicago Photographic Studios, Photo-Mechanical Printing and Publishing Company, Chicago.
Strike two: the quality of the new uniforms.
Production schedules were tight during the spring of 1882. Every National League player was to receive two sets of the color-coded uniforms. This meant that Spalding’s factory was required to produce 176 uniforms in total (8 teams x 11 uniforms x 2 = 176). The first samples were assembled and at a league meeting in Rochester on March 7 “the new parti-colored uniforms for League players were exhibited.” At this meeting, the teams also announced their player “engagements” for the upcoming season.
But here is where it seems a few corners were cut. For reasons unknown, either Spalding or the league desired to have all of the new uniforms delivered to teams for the start of the exhibition season, which began in early April (the regular season began on May 1). Newspapers confirmed that most uniforms were delivered to teams in the first week of April, Cleveland first received their uniforms on April 1. Players also reported during this first week.
TWO QUESTIONS.
COULD PLAYERS HAVE INDEPENDENTLY SUBMITTED THEIR OWN MEASUREMENTS FOR FITTED UNIFORMS ONCE ROSTERS WERE SET IN EARLY MARCH?
DID SPALDING HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO RECEIVE THOSE MEASUREMENTS AND MANUFACTURE 176 FITTED UNIFORMS BY EARLY APRIL?
Scattered newspaper accounts suggested the answer to both questions was no, and that the new uniforms were not based on players’ measurements — in fact, some uniforms were reportedly ill-fitting.
In an exhibition game on April 5, Joe Start of Providence first came to bat reportedly looking like a “great big overgrown boy” in his new uniform, and that “his knickerbockers, with the broad white belt, appeared to come well under his arms.” In an exhibition game on April 22, a newspaper noted that Buffalo’s O’Rourke “had the nerve to [first] wear his new uniform” with the shirt “being much too large for its wearer.”
In addition to fit, the material may also have been an issue. In April, the Boston team commented on how the new shirts were “very thick, and, in hot weather, will be very uncomfortable” while the new pants were “very thin and apparently made of poor material.” The Buffalo players thought the new stockings were of “an inferior grade.” The shirts may have been made of silk and the pants of canvas. Neither, it seems, was made of flannel.
Sourcing issues may also have shortened production timelines. A report in January 1882 stated that the material “was secured only by a good bit of trouble. It comes from a Quaker factory somewhere up in Iowa.” The third baseman’s uniform was changed by Spalding in January from blue-and-white stripes to gray-and-white stripes after the blue material was “found impossible to obtain.” Newspaper accounts confirmed that many of the NL third basemen wore gray-and-white shirts in 1882. However, a report tells us that Boston third baseman Sam Wise did indeed wear a blue-and-white shirt when the team first donned new uniforms in an exhibition game at home on April 18. So much for color-coding.
Team executives were also unhappy with the expense of the new uniforms. A Buffalo newspaper reported that a cost of “thirty dollars was paid for the two suits for each player” and that the uniforms “could doubtless have been made in Buffalo for half the amount.” Thirty dollars in 1882 equals $820 in 2022, no small sum — now multiply that amount by 11 players. Some teams required the players to purchase the uniforms. All players on all teams were responsible for the laundry of their uniforms.
QUESTION. IF SPALDING DESIRED TO BE THE KING OF MANUFACTURING, WHY PRODUCE ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL UNIFORMS THAT WERE IMPRACTICAL FOR USE AND INFERIOR IN MATERIALS?
This one is hard to answer. There is no doubt the company felt the need to rush the production of these uniforms for the April exhibition season. The fast pace may have dictated some of their choices. One could guess that the Spalding brand was certainly damaged by the product it produced in the spring of 1882.
Dated April 1882 to mid-July 1882. Studio image of the Troy team of the National League wearing color-coded uniforms. The system accounted for eleven uniforms: nine position players and two substitutes. However the Troy team carried twelve players at the time of this photo. This meant that second baseman/manager Bob Ferguson, seated in center, had to wear a Troy uniform from the previous season of 1881 — which Bob sure looked happy about.
Strike three: the merits of league-wide color-coding.
When the system was announced, newspapers first supported Spalding’s idea. One report from January 1882 detailed the need for change, stating that “frequently three or four fielders run together to make a play. One handles the ball, but scorers differ as to which one it was, so thoroughly are the players jumbled together all being uniformed alike.”
REALLY? ISN’T THE COLOR-CODED SYSTEM JUST AS JUMBLED?
Imagine this scenario: a first baseman comes to bat and hits a single. He stops at first base, where both he and the fielding first baseman now stand next to each other. Each wears the same red-and-white cap, the same red-and-white shirt and the same white pants. Isn’t that far more confusing? Discuss.
Dated 1882. Images of four National League first basemen wearing identical uniforms to signify their position in the field. From left, Dan Brouthers, Buffalo; Cap Anson, Chicago; Martin Powell, Detroit; and John Smith, Troy. Newspapers in early 1882 described the first baseman’s uniform as a scarlet-and-white shirt with white pants. One paper noted that the players also wore a “square-top cap [in the] color of shirt.”
QUESTION. WAS COLOR-CODING ACROSS THE ENTIRE LEAGUE A VALID IDEA?
Based on the short life of these uniforms in 1882, the answer was no, not really.
WAS COLOR-CODING MERELY AN ATTEMPT TO CORNER THE MARKET AND SECURE UNIFORM CONTRACTS FOR ALL EIGHT NL TEAMS?
It certainly seems so. Spalding, along with his business partner, brother J. Walter Spalding (1956-1931), had many competitors, most notably Al Reach in Philadelphia and Wright & Ditson in Boston — companies that Spalding would eventually buy out, Reach in 1889 and Wright in 1891. Already providing the league ball and the printed annual, there was no doubt that Spalding wanted to dominate the category of uniform manufacturing. Getting the entire league to accept his new system was a big step towards that end.
WAS SPALDING BLINDED BY COLOR-CODING?
Hindsight is 20/20 and one could say there were other emerging manufacturing opportunities on the baseball horizon that Spalding missed. In 1882 teams were starting to produce “second” uniforms for wet and muddy spring games. One example was the St. Louis team of the upstart American Association. A newspaper reported in March 1882 that “the Browns are having two suits made. The regular is of white flannel, while the other is of blueish gray. The latter will be worn on practice and damp days, while the white uniform will be worn in fair weather and in regular games.” A few years later, the gray spring uniform evolved into the gray road uniform, worn by a majority of NL teams for the 1886 season when away from home. It is interesting to note that Spalding could not immediately foresee this new business opportunity and put his attention there.
White-out: the second half of 1882.
When the National League voted to abandon the color-coded uniforms in June 1882 it was reported that clubs were free to “dispense with the ‘clown costumes’ and return to the old style uniforms.” One newspaper said most teams would “retain the white pants, and adopt an inexpensive white or gray shirt, much lighter in weight than the present cumbersome garments.”
Dated 1880s, possibly 1882. Studio portrait of Roger Conner, full view at left, detail view at right. Though unconfirmed, this may be an image of Connor wearing the Troy uniform after the team discarded the color-coded suits in July 1882. Connor wore a white uniform in this photo and held a striped pillbox-style cap in his left hand. The shape of the shield bib on the shirt was similar to that found on the team’s 1881 uniform, suggesting the Troy management repurposed the older shirts. The cap Connor held may suggest the team continued to wear the color-coded caps for the remainder of the 1882 season.
DO WE KNOW WHAT EACH TEAM WORE AFTER THE COLOR-CODING SYSTEM WAS DROPPED?
Yes, sort of. Though documentation is sketchy, Threads attempts to visualize the uniforms worn during the second half of the 1882 season. Click on the links below to go to each individual team page:
1882 Boston – changed to a white shirt and cap
1882 Buffalo – changed to a gray uniform repurposed from 1881, then added a red cap and red stockings
1882 Chicago – changed to two different uniforms, introduced red as a team color, and then late in the year introduced a new series of color-coded caps. Oh, Albert.
1882 Cleveland – changed to a white shirt and a white cap with a blue band
1882 Detroit – possibly changed to a white shirt and cap, and yellow belt
1882 Providence – changed to a gray shirt with lace ties and a gray cap
1882 Troy – unknown, though the team may have worn portions of the 1881 uniform
1882 Worcester – unknown, may have worn portions of the 1881 uniform
Stars in stripes: the legacy of 1882.
Amazingly, after rejection by the players, mockery from the fans, and name-calling by the press, the striped uniforms of the color-coded system did not vanish from the playing field. Send in the clowns, there ought to be clowns. A few examples follow:
Dated 1882. Studio image of the Cincinnati team of the newly-formed American Association wearing the same color-coded uniforms offered to the National League. Cincinnati won the AA pennant this year, and therefore equated the new uniforms with winning, reviving the look again in 1888.
Dated 1887. Old Judge baseball card of Jim O’Rourke of the New York National League team, full view at left, detail view at right. As stated above, O’Rourke was outspoken against the idea of striped uniforms in 1882 when he was with Buffalo. Now here he was, five years later, photographed wearing the New York road uniform, which was described as “caps and trousers white, maroon and black shirts and maroon stockings.” Wonder what Orator Jim had to say about this?
Dated September 1890 to October 1890. Team photo of the 1890 Spokane team of the Pacific Northwest League. A newspaper described these outfits this year, saying that the team “broke out new uniforms that included […] white shirts and caps marked with broad vertical navy stripes.” One word: wow.
These are just a few examples of the fickle nature of baseball fashion: something once considered ridiculous in 1882, was now somehow acceptable later in the decade. Spalding, it seems, was redeemed — and likely made the uniforms, too.
Thank you for your time. I hope you enjoyed this deep dive on the uniforms of 1882. If you know of any corrections or additional information regarding these or any uniforms on this website, please send an email. — Craig
Documentation:
–1882 Detroit team photo from Mark Fimoff, SABR 19th-Century Pictorial Committee
–“Adopted for giving players individuality” from the Detroit Free Press, December 11, 1881
–“Easy matter to distinguish the man at bat” from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, April 14, 1882
–“Fermenting in his fertile brain” from the Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, January 15, 1882, research from Richard Hersberger, as posted to protoball.org
–“To present their nines in the uniforms prescribed” from the Detroit Free Press, December 11, 1881
–“Making clowns out of professional base-ball players” and “Put off the evil day as long as possible” from the Buffalo Express, April 13, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–“A grand shout of laughter from the crowd” and “Kept on his old gray knit jacket” from the Providence Morning Star, April 6, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–“Worth the price of admission” from the Detroit Free-Press, April 8, 1882, research from Tom Shieber
–“Be sold to some fancy masquerade costumer” from the Detroit Free Press, June 10, 1882
–“The Troy pitcher and catcher wore bright green and brown blouses” from the Providence Evening Press, May 2, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–“The uniform is universally commented upon and condemned” from the Cleveland Leader, May 4, 1882, research from Peter Morris, A Game Of Inches, (2006, 2010)
–“Voted unanimously to allow each club to select its own colors” from the Chicago Tribune, June 18, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–“Laying aside the zebra suits” from the Buffalo Express, June 16, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–1882 Chicago team photo from Mark Fimoff, SABR 19th-Century Pictorial Committee
–“The new parti-colored uniforms for League players were exhibited” from the Buffalo Commercial, March 8, 1882
–“Great big overgrown boy” from the Providence Morning Star, April 6, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–“Being much too large for its wearer” from the Buffalo Courier, April 23, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–“Very thick, and, in hot weather, will be very uncomfortable” from the Boston Herald, April 23, 1882, research from Richard Hershberger, as posted to protoball.org
–“An inferior grade” from the Buffalo Express, April 13, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–“Secured only by a good bit of trouble” from the Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, January 15, 1882
–“Found impossible to obtain” from the Buffalo Commercial, January 5, 1882
–“Thirty dollars was paid for the two suits for each player” from the Buffalo Express, April 13, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–“Frequently three or four fielders run together to make a play” from the Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, January 15, 1882, research from Richard Hersberger, as posted to protoball.org
–Circa 1882 image of Dan Brouthers from the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Cooperstown, NY
—“Square-top cap [in the] color of shirt” from the Chicago Inter Ocean, December 10, 1881
–“The Browns are having two suits made” from St. Louis Globe-Democrat, March 6, 1882, research from Ed Morton, and also from Clifford Blau
–“Dispense with the ‘clown costumes’ and return to the old style uniforms” from the Daily Memphis Avalanche, June 25, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–“Retain the white pants, and adopt an inexpensive white shirt” from the Chicago Tribune, June 18, 1882, research from Ed Morton
–1880s image of Roger Conner from the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Cooperstown, NY
–1882 Cincinnati team photo from Mark Fimoff, SABR 19th-Century Pictorial Committee
–1887 image of Old Judge baseball card of Jim O’Rourke from The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
–“Caps and trousers white, maroon and black shirts and maroon stockings” from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 14, 1887, citing the New York Sun, research from Todd Radom
–1890 Spokane team photo from Nigel Ayres
–“Broke out new uniforms that included […] white shirts and caps marked with broad vertical navy stripes” from Jim Price, the Spokane Spokesman-Review: Spokane’s First Pro Ball Team Also Its First Champ, published May 17, 2015
Rendering posted: August 25, 2022
Diggers on this uniform: Carson Lorey, Ed Morton, John Thorn, Mark Fimoff, Mike Roer, Nigel Ayres, Peter Morris, Richard Hershberger, Todd Radom, Tom Shieber,