Just giving a little dig at Shyster for working for "The Softball Times". I mean, hardballs have red stitching, not white. Right? I know that ye olde style glove is small, but that ball's too big to be a baseball anyways. (click on their banner below to see a larger version)
These are the things that I notice that keep me up at night.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Softball Times?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
It's actually an old ball from the baseball forerunner "bat and trap." We're that damn old school.
/trying
As the resident black and white picture correspondent, I must point out that given the picture is in B&W, you can't tell what color the stitching is anyway.
Wow, someone wrote something about baseball and steroids wasn't mentioned. I didn't thin it was possible.
Jay: still, RED stitching would show up as dark, not light. Correct?
It looks darker than the white on the rest of the ball, right? But that could be because thread is less reflective than leather.
Here's a pic where the stitching doesn't look very dark...
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_223/1199460450X634k4.jpg
And here's one where it does...
http://69.90.174.249/photos/display_pic_with_logo/6203/6203,1112236899,3.jpg
It could be an older ball (for the intended look) and the stitching might have faded.
Jay, good pix but I still think that ball looks too big with white stitching to be a baseball.
Not that it matters one iota, but I just happened to look at it and wonder aloud: "is that a softball?"
Oh no, That's a great catch on your part. One of those things that you look at 100 times and notice the 101st.
The size is probably the most damming piece of evidence because gloves were much smaller back in the day. Although, unless it Eddie Gaedel's, the THT has some 'splainin' to do.
And what would life be without pointless argum... thoughtful discussions over the internet?
Post a Comment