Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.02 1983 vs 1996

[Benjamin Grimm]

1983



1996

[Guest d'Kong76]

1983, because that is one goofy-ass cover versus a rather boring one.

[Guest 41Forever]

Went with 1983 because of Seaver!

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah.

I like the attempted whimsy of the 83 cover but not really sure its executed as well as it was imagined. So many other illustrated covers did it better. Mookie looks like Mookie, that's a plus, and I like Neil's fireman's helmet but half the guys are just standing there and really rendered less distinct than irl, which caricatures really shouldn't.

96 is okay, I get the message that they're men at work, which was probably the right selling point following the lockout and with a team that required you sort of buy into the idea that they were "sums of their parts." It's just not all that exciting.

[G-Fafif]

I think the 1983 artist was well known in Canadian circles (did a lot of Expos sketches), indicative that the Mets in the fairly early Doubleday years were open to anything from a marketing standpoint. I first saw this cover on a newsstand and was blown away by the thought that went into each of the caricatures, if not the result. Interesting that this was the revised edition in that by the time there was something to revise, you would have featured Hernandez and Strawberry and downgraded Kingman and Stearns (who was inactive most of the year). The fun was a little ways from starting when this cover was commissioned.

The '96 cover was the year after the strike was settled, so I don't know that was a factor. Despite showing us some of the faces that gave us hope off a hot finish in '95, this one drips with anonymity.

The weird one beats the dull one.

[MFS62]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I like the attempted whimsy of the 83 cover but not really sure its executed as well as it was imagined. So many other illustrated covers did it better.

And that is why I voted for 1996.
And, in case they forgot to remind us (which they should have) 1996 was the tenth anniversary of a World Series victory.

Later

[Zvon]

41Forever wrote: Went with 1983 because of Seaver!

That's enough of a reason right there!^

Also art over lack of substance. I want to try and slide the squares around on the '96 one and get those tiles to line up and form the right picture.

[fimg=200]https://www.partypalooza.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/SmileyPuzzle_540x540.jpg[/fimg]

[stevejrogers]

I dislike ‘96 from the standpoint of “who!?” looking at the pics. I mean WE HERE know those depicted, but not a ton of clues, unless you had the physical copy and you could line up faces, positions, etc.

It is amusing that in the 1970s they dabbled with different covers for the revised yearbook, but wouldn’t again until the mid to late 1980s. Off hand, no clue if Keith is in the revised edition, or if it came out just before June 15th (its boxed up somewhere, waiting for me to unload it online in some fashion), but it is amusing that as the year was wrapping up, you could buy freshly printed official merch with Neil Allen depicted.

Which kinda proves a point I made some time ago that Allen was more along the lines of Proven Crap (servicable enough part, but not a “build a staff/bullpen around” piece) when traded, as opposed to the forgettable nobody that some label him as when harking back on the move.

[Benjamin Grimm]

On the 1996 cover, I recognize Todd Hundley, but I don't know who the other three faces are. I suppose I might have recognized them twenty years ago, but I'm not even sure of that. There was a period between the end of Channel 9 as a superstation and the advent of Extra Innings and the like when I didn't get to see too many Mets games. And I have no idea whose hands and feet are depicted in the other "body parts" images on that cover.

1983 is definitely a weird cover, and as Steve mentions, it's strange that Keith Hernandez didn't replace Neil Allen in the upper right corner for the revised edition. The illustrations seem to be inspired by the Bruce Stark caricatures from the previous decade, in composition anyway. Certainly not in terms of style or quality.

Looking at that cover now I have the same reaction that I did 35 years ago. Tom Seaver as a hitchhiking vampire????

And I guess it's understandable that George Foster got off to a poor start with the Mets, given that he opted to use a giant candle instead of a baseball bat.

I'm curious to know who that cover artist is. The online images of the cover that I've seen are too small in size to read the signature. I thought about digging out my print copy, but I'm not sure it would tell me much. I kind of doubt that the cover artist is credited on the inside of the book, but I could be wrong.

I voted 1983. It's strange and ugly, but in a fun quirky way. "Now the fun starts" also proved to be accurate. It was when the good times were just getting started. 1983 was still a losing season, but with the arrival of Keith Hernandez and Darryl Strawberry (who would both have to wait until the following year to appear on a yearbook cover) there was a definite sense that better times were ahead.

[G-Fafif]

Per the revisions of '83, yes, Neil Allen should have been disappeared had the publication deadline extended beyond June 15. And why would you revise a yearbook without waiting?

Oh, and the artist was indeed the famous (in Canada) Canadian illustrator Ainslin. If you have read Jonah Keri's Expos book, you'll recognize the style. He drew a lot more Expos than Mets.

Gilkey, Brogna, Pulsipher and Isringhausen seem to be the faces of '96, with a piece of Carl Everett's uniform identifiable. There really was a lot to look forward to coming off the 34-18 finish the year before. So much, that they could barely squeeze it on to the cover, apparently.

[Edgy MD]

1996, because Tom Seaver does not look like Sam Donaldson.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It really is a bad likeness.

[Zvon]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Tom Seaver as a hitchhiking vampire????

lololol!