Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.03 1977 revised vs 2002

[Benjamin Grimm]

1977 Revised Edition



2002

[Benjamin Grimm]

The 2002 cover is a little too busy for my taste, but it's better than a photo of a guy sitting at a desk with his mouth open.

I understand that the 1977 yearbook had to be revised, considering the franchise altering trades that saw the departure of Mike Phillips, Dave Kingman, and someone else, whose name escapes me at the moment. He was a pitcher who went to Cincinnati. But I remember being disappointed that they revised the cover. I liked that Jerry Koosman was finally getting his due, with a cover devoted to his 20-win season.

[MFS62]

How could any Mets fan vote for anything with Clueless Joe's picture on it, especially that picture?

Later

[Edgy MD]

I'm a Mets fan and I could vote for that.

I like most of the composition of the 2002 book, though they should probably switch Valentine and Piazza around. (Notice how all the figures are facing away from the middle. I also don't like the 40th anniversary logo, with too many sharp edges. I'll probably go for 2002, though.

OE: I went for 1977. Between the bad contrast and the figures facing away from the middle, the logo is lost.

I understand that photo to represent Torre filling out his very first lineup card. That's pretty cool, and it's the only real story in town for the second half of 1977.

And if the photo is less than ideal, well, it's not posed, man. Sexy wood paneling, too.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Pretty bold to have compared Bobby Vee with Casey there. Design of that book was a bit too contemporary (too shiny).

I kind of liked the journalistic quality of the 1977 cover and remember that one well, even though the picture itself isn't great.

[stevejrogers]

2002. 1977’s looks too rushed but done to capitalize on the one change that could be deemed as positive.

[Guest 41Forever]

I like 2002's much better. Torre's photo would be fine for a program cover, but not the yearbook.

[G-Fafif]

I retain a soft spot for the 1977 cover. I bought it on the first trip I ever took to Shea that didn't include adult (or at least older-sibling) supervision. It did seem very up to date, and I was pro-Torre throughout Joe's Mets tenure, despite my misgivings when the manager is sold as the star attraction. Then again, post-June 15, who were you going to feature -- M. Donald Grant?

The 2002 cover gets my vote, however, because I'm always amazed when the Mets manage to skillfully communicate the breadth of their history, which I think they did here. Whatever quibbles one might have with which picture goes where, they managed to tell their story well in a few photos and make it click with their contemporary situation. It was fortunate that Piazza and Valentine had just been at the head of the third successful era in Mets history so they didn't have to pretend somebody they recently let go hadn't existed. A year later, the same concept would not have worked so well had Art Howe been positioned as an essential element to be celebrated in this context. The cover hits all the high notes: origins, championships and The Franchise. (The media guide had a similar design, one of those times when the unified look paid off across publications.)

[Guest cooby]

That whole year (1977) has a spot in my heart

[Guest d'Kong76]

Took '77 by a hair, I liked Torre back then. Player-manager for like a half
month... that was cool. Lord what a turd he became around 1996 haha...

[Lefty Specialist]

Two years that portended the beginning of franchise collapses. 2002 wins by a mile, though.

[RealityChuck]

That's just a terrible photo of Joe Torre: his eyes staring off at different angles far from the camera. What's he looking at? The ceiling? And the expression?

[A Boy Named Seo]

I went 2002, but it was close. The anniversary logo is a little too dark for that unnecessary shadow effect over the gold banner part. And the nice nod to the history is a little to sepia toned, but at least they did it.