1895 Minneapolis (Millers)

The rendering at left is based on visual documentation for uniform style only. Color information is unknown and the uniform is rendered in values of gray. Important details may also be undocumented or difficult to determine and an educated guess is made to complete the rendering. The rendering at right is how the uniform may have looked once the lettering was removed.

Rendering accuracy:Year: documented    Team: documented

Removing ads from uniforms — it happened in 1895.

I think most would agree that the baseball uniform is no place for advertising. Not on batting helmets, not on shirtsleeves, not anywhere. Imagine the iconic Dodgers script someday being replaced by the mark of a corporate sponsor? Ugh, so English Premier League.

However, as you can see in the rendering above, such an occurrence took place in Minneapolis in 1895. The team’s shirt that year didn’t read “Minneapolis” or ”Millers,” instead it read like one of the painted signs on the outfield wall. Barnstorming teams of the day, such as the Hop Bitters and Page Fence Giants, pushed products on their shirts — but Minneapolis was a member of the lofty Western League, soon to become the American League. In late May 1895 the ad was removed, but not for reasons you would expect.

Thanks to the Detroit Free Press, we have this illustration below to verify how the uniform looked.

Dated May 23, 1895. This rendering of a Minneapolis player was published on this day by the Detroit Free Press, full view at left, detail view at right. The drawing was most likely based on a photograph, an image that was probably taken on the field before the May 22 game in Detroit. The rendering depicted a Minneapolis player wearing a white shirt and pants of a mid-tone color. The stockings and the undershirt were dark in color. The pillbox-style cap may have been white or mid-toned in color. The detail view clearly showed the words “Use Washburn-Crosby Flour” across the chest. A newspaper account from May 25, 1895, also confirmed that the message read as such. As no photographs of this uniform are known to exist, this illustration is the only visual record available.

The uniform was the responsibility of Minneapolis manager John Barnes, who arranged the deal with the Washburn-Crosby Flour Company of Minneapolis. Washburn-Crosby, along with Pillsbury-Crosby and Consolidated Milling, were responsible for making Minneapolis the nation’s “Flour City.”

And if you don’t believe me, the 1890 Minneapolis uniform actually said so. See that uniform here.

Barnes may have been a natural promoter. In the winter before the 1895 season, he turned the Minneapolis ballpark into a skating rink. In April 1895, he looked to build a second diamond on the outskirts of town to avoid losing revenue from Sunday games.

In an exhibition game in Minneapolis on April 26, 1895, against the aforementioned Page Fence Giants, the Minneapolis Tribune noted that Barnes held a contest that day to award “a handsome tea set costing $25” to the most popular African-American woman attending.

The Detroit Free Press called Barnes “a hustler” in April 1895. He may also have been a bit of a personality. The Kansas City Times noted that at one game in early May 1895 Barnes wore a “spectacular spring suit,” something the newspaper described as “noisy.” For Barnes, putting an ad on the uniform may have been second nature.

Getting the message about the message.

At first, the ad on the front of the shirt was apparently of no interest to anyone. Minneapolis newspapers did not mention it in early 1895 (nor, sadly, did they mention the colors of the uniform). There also seemed to be no dissenting opinions from League President Ban Johnson. The only criticism came from the Detroit Free Press. They called the shirts “obnoxious” and “very much cheap John,” a possible reference to Barnes. They felt the players looked like “sandwich men.” I wonder, could this possibly mean the ad was on both sides of the shirt?

It wasn’t until the American Federation of Labor paid Barnes a visit in late May that the shirts were suddenly altered or discarded. Here’s why. In March 1895, a slowdown in demand for flour had forced the Pillsbury workers to accept a salary reduction. Washburn employees refused to go along with a similar cut, so the AFL swept in to give the Pillsbury workers more clout. One of the first union activities was to organize a boycott of Washburn-Crosby flour, and by extension, a boycott of Minneapolis baseball, both at home and “in every city in the league circuit.”

According to one newspaper, team management got the message on May 24, 1895. They quickly responded stating that the shirts “will not be worn again,” and that if replacement shirts could not be immediately found, then “the name will be torn off the shirts or hidden beneath sweaters.” For a game on May 26, the shirts were officially devoid of the ad. As one newspaper put it, “the sandwich shirts should be worn no more.”

With the SABR convention taking place in Minneapolis-St. Paul this August, I thought this little uniform story was especially interesting. Thank you for your time.

—Info on building a second ballpark from the Minneapolis Times, March 27, 1895. Info on the tea-set promotion from the Minneapolis Tribune, April 25, 1895. Hustler comment from the Detroit Free Press, April 7, 1895. Info on Barnes’ suit from the Kansas City Times, May 6, 1895. Info on Detroit critique of uniform from the Detroit Free Press, May 22, 1895. Info on the flour mills and labor unions from Minneapolis Journal, March 4, 1895, and the Minneapolis Tribune, March 18, 1895. For more details, see the written descriptions below.

Visual documentation on these uniforms:
See illustration above from the Detroit Free Press, May 23, 1895.

Written documentation on these uniforms:
April 1895, quote from Minneapolis manager John S. Barnes: “‘Watch out for the Millers when we come down the line with our new uniforms.’” From the Detroit Free Press, April 7, 1895.

May 5, 1895, Minneapolis v. Kansas City, at Kansas City: “[Minneapolis first baseman] Perry Werden’s bat was as noisy as Manager John Barnes’ spectacular spring suit.” From Kansas City Times, May 6, 1895. The Times also noted on this day that “the Millers and Blues will play again today at Exposition park,” utilizing the team nicknames.

May 18, 1895, Minneapolis v. St. Paul, at Minneapolis: “By the time the players climbed into their playing suits – they’re hardly to be called uniforms in this town – it was 4:45.” From the Minneapolis Times, May 19, 1895.

May 21, 1895, Minneapolis v. Detroit, at Detroit: “The Millers are strong and will be in the race all through the year. The enterprising manager of the club has departed from ordinary tactics and for some compensation allows his men to advertise a patent flour on their shirt fronts. This is very much ‘cheap John’ and if nothing else can be done, the league directors should force Mr. Barnes to have more respect for the game and the other members of the league than to send his players around the circuit like sandwich men.” From the Detroit Free Press, May 22, 1895.

May 22, 1895, Minneapolis v. Detroit, at Detroit: “[Minneapolis infielder Joe] Werrick, who sensibly wore a black sweater to conceal the flour advertisement on his shirt front, hit [the ball] in the air and there was cheering.” From the Detroit Free Press, May 23, 1895.

May 24, 1896, Minneapolis v. Grand Rapids, at Grand Rapids: “The Minneapolis ball team is in a little hard luck here [in Grand Rapids] because of wearing uniforms furnished by the Washburn-Crosby Company, of Minneapolis, and bearing the words ‘Use Washburn-Crosby Flour’ across the front of the shirts. Local labor union men have informed the Minneapolis management that the output of the mills advertised is under boycott by the American Federation of Labor and unless the team changes uniforms they say the team will be boycotted here and in every city in the league circuit. President Martin stated tonight that the uniforms will not be worn again here if enough of others can be found, and if they cannot be the name will be torn off the shirts or hidden beneath sweaters.” From the Minneapolis Times, May 26, 1895.

May 25, 1896, Minneapolis v. Grand Rapids, at Grand Rapids: “The Minneapolis team appeared here [in Grand Rapids] in a shirt bearing the advertisement of the Washburn flour, which has been boycotted by union labor. So much objection was raised by patrons of the game the Manager Barnes announced tonight that the advertising shirts would hereafter be discarded. He was not aware a boycott was on.” From the Minneapolis Tribune, May 26, 1895. Research from Stew Thornley, Baseball in Minnesota: The Definitive History (2006).

May 26, 1895, Minneapolis v. Grand Rapids, at Grand Rapids: “Another feature was that the Millers appeared without the obnoxious flour advertising on their blouses. A delegation of labor men informed the managers of both teams that the flour advertised was a non-union article that was under boycott by the American Federation of Labor and protested against the team advertising it. Barnes at once promised that the sandwich shirts should be worn no more by his men.” From the Detroit Free Press, May 27, 1895.

Team genealogy: Minneapolis 1894-1900
Minneapolis joined the Western League (WL) in 1894 when the league reformed. The reorganized WL operated between 1894 and 1899 and reformed again as the American League (AL) for the 1900 season. Minneapolis played in the WL between 1894 and 1899 and in the American League in 1900. The team was dropped before the 1901 AL season when the league declared major league status. Information from wikipedia.com.