Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.04 1970 vs 2010

[Benjamin Grimm]

1970



2010

[stevejrogers]

1970, no explanation needed!

[Guest 41Forever]

One thing that I always found distracting about the 1970 cover: Wouldn't the photos on the film on the vertical strip appear sideways when projected on a screen? I know, I know. Thinking too hard. But I always wondered why they chose film as a design element.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

They'd never put rioting fans on the cover these days.

[Edgy MD]

41Forever wrote: One thing that I always found distracting about the 1970 cover: Wouldn't the photos on the film on the vertical strip appear sideways when projected on a screen? I know, I know. Thinking too hard. But I always wondered why they chose film as a design element.

Because the camera was held vertically when shooting that roll.

Great job mixing color and b/w photography, and underscoring the fans as part of the story.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The 1970 cover is, incidentally, the inspiration for the Yearbook Cover Derby, when it was the subject of this recent thread.

I have to say, this cover does a great job of capturing the celebratory nature of a World Series win. Much better than either of the 1987 covers did, as we'll soon see.

The 2010 cover isn't bad at all, but fate dealt it a tough first-round opponent. I can easily identify most of the players, except for two. In the top row we have Rodriguez, Beltran, Santana, Wright and... Perez? In the bottom row, Reyes, Pelfrey, Bay, Maine, and... I have no idea. His name starts with FE but I have no recollection of who it might be.

[Guest 41Forever]

I just noticed how the price jumped from 75 cents to $12 over that 40-year time period!

I used to study those yearbooks as a kid.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I know what you mean. My first yearbook was the 1971 edition when I was eight years old, and my copy ended up in tatters. I wrote notes in it, I cut pictures out of it, and spent so much time flipping through it that it was literally coming apart. Years later I ordered a replacement edition that has remained in much better shape.

[Lefty Specialist]

1970 was my first yearbook. No contest.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Our most lopsided poll so far, and one that has the potential to be unanimous. (1970 has all 12 votes at this point.)

I looked up the 2010 Mets, and that last photo in the lower left may be... Jesus Feliciano? If Jesus Feliciano was expected to be the tenth most prominent Met in 2010, they probably should have just put nine photos on the cover.

[G-Fafif]

2010 looks like a brochure. In fact, the cover was the same used for season ticket sales material and other stuff. Not an inspiring tableau, though points for capturing a blip when Jeff Francoeur and Oliver Perez were considered marketable.

I gladly handed over 15 or so bucks to get a copy of the 1970 yearbook in a card store in the early 2000s. I wanted it more than 1969 (which I still don't have) because it was a look back on the most miraculous feat ever, as opposed to the limited achievements of 1968 serving as the base point of reference. As such, I was a wee bit disappointed that the Mets didn't truly scream WORLD CHAMPIONS from this most obvious perch. Then again, if you watch the 1969 highlight film, it almost takes winning the World Series in stride, featuring it right there with Borden Night. To be fair, it's not like the Mets Department of Yearbooks & Other Vital Organs had experience reflecting on outsize success.

No doubt the cover captures the ebullience all felt in 1969. Reviewing it now makes me give a slight pass to the marauders who took the field in 1973 and 1986 because it was in our DNA to storm from the stands. The Mets sanctioned it. It was what we did...or so you'd be convinced from the 1970 yearbook.

An easy choice where the vote is concerned. Sorry, 2010. You had an impossible task.

[G-Fafif]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Our most lopsided poll so far, and one that has the potential to be unanimous. (1970 has all 12 votes at this point.) I looked up the 2010 Mets, and that last photo in the lower left may be... Jesus Feliciano? If Jesus Feliciano was expected to be the tenth most prominent Met in 2010, they probably should have just put nine photos on the cover.

That was Jeff Francoeur.

[A Boy Named Seo]

I gave 2010 a sympathy vote. It's super clean, they're embracing the return to blue and orange and have the dudes in all white. Not bad at all. Tough draw, 2k10, keep your head up.

[RealityChuck]

Two excellent designs. I prefer 2010 because of the clean design; the photo in 1970 makes it too busy. Still, the 1970 one is in the top half of what we've seen so far.

[Benjamin Grimm]

G-Fafif wrote: That was Jeff Francoeur.

Oops! My bad, I thought that was an FE and not an FR.

[Guest cooby]

I could tell you who at least most of the guys on the 1970 are, 2010 prolly none of them

[stevejrogers]

G-Fafif wrote: though points for capturing a blip when Jeff Francoeur and Oliver Perez were considered marketable.

Ditto Jason Bay!

I completely agree, does seem more like a prospectus folder, or a campus admissions booklet cover than a publication meant for memorabilia.

[Benjamin Grimm]

cooby wrote: I could tell you who at least most of the guys on the 1970 are, 2010 prolly none of them

Not even Reyes, Wright, Santana, and Beltran?

[batmagadanleadoff]

1970 was my first yearbook, a gift from a relative. I had no advance knowledge that I was about to receive it, and in that moment that I did, I think I might've been the happiest kid in the world. But for all of the warm sentimental value this yearbook holds to me, and the coverage of the Mets most amazin' season, I'm not convinced it should win this round, at least not as handily as most of you do. The design is cluttered and the triptych background doesn't work for me: the three panels don't have enough separation - they seem to melt into each other. I would've preferred just one background image, perhaps the now iconic mound hug including Ed Charles's dance of joy, but there were obviously plenty of pics to choose from. I'm voting almost entirely on design and aesthetics, and so I won't give much extra credit simply because the 1970 yearbook covers such an extremely historical season. Ofherwise, we might as well rank the yearbooks according to the previous seasons' W-L records and stipulate that the 1987's are the best and that the Mullin covers are the worst.
Would you all say that the 2010 yearbook cover was terrific if it employed the 1970 design, with Bay and Francoeur among the Mets in the film strips and a three panel background scene that included Sheffield's 500th HR, opening day at the brand new stadium, Castillo's infamous ninth inning error or David Wright wearing his oversized Great Gazoo batting helmet?

Edited March 26, 2018 by Guest

[Guest cooby]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: cooby wrote: I could tell you who at least most of the guys on the 1970 are, 2010 prolly none of them Not even Reyes, Wright, Santana, and Beltran?

Okay, exactly those four!

[Guest d'Kong76]

Took '70, one of my favorites. I thought I voted the other day but just voted now.

[Edgy MD]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I gave 2010 a sympathy vote. It's super clean, they're embracing the return to blue and orange and have the dudes in all white. Not bad at all. Tough draw, 2k10, keep your head up.

Man, that Citi Field logo alone should sink 2010's candidacy.

[Zvon]

1970 was also my first ever Mets yearbook. And I loved it, poured over it, absorbed it, learned so much about the players on the team then.

And I love that cover for a number of reasons, all I think touched on here already.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: In the bottom row, Reyes, Pelfrey, Bay, Maine, and... I have no idea. His name starts with FE but I have no recollection of who it might be.

G-Fafif wrote: That was Jeff Francoeur.

Yea, that's Frenchy. All I recall of his time here was that he yakked a little more than he raked.
I had no problem remembering his KABOOM pic tho.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: 1970 was my first yearbook, a gift from a relative.

That must have been so cool to get by surprise.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Would you all say that the 2010 yearbook cover was terrific if it employed the 1970 design, with Bay and Francoeur among the Mets in the film strips and a three panel background scene that included Sheffield's 500th HR, opening day at the brand new stadium, Castillo's infamous ninth inning error or David Wright wearing his oversized Great Gazoo batting helmet?

An inspirational idea. I'll make a 1970 like remake for 2018 but it doesn't see the light of day unless we make the post season this year.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I gave 2010 a sympathy vote.

Wha?! There's no sympathy in baseball! Nor in YCD!

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: 1970 was my first yearbook, a gift from a relative. I had no advance knowledge that I was about to receive it, and in that moment that I did, I think I might've been the happiest kid in the world. But for all of the warm sentimental value this yearbook holds to me, and the coverage of the Mets most amazin' season, I'm not convinced it should win this round, at least not as handily as most of you do. The design is cluttered and the triptych background doesn't work for me: the three panels don't have enough separation - they seem to melt into each other. I would've preferred just one background image, perhaps the now iconic mound hug including Ed Charles's dance of joy, but there were obviously plenty of pics to choose from. I'm voting almost entirely on design and aesthetics, and so I won't give much extra credit simply because the 1970 yearbook covers such an extremely historical season. Ofherwise, we might as well rank the yearbooks according to the previous seasons' W-L records and stipulate that the 1987's are the best and that the Mullin covers are the worst. Would you all say that the 2010 yearbook cover was terrific if it employed the 1970 design, with Bay and Francoeur among the Mets in the film strips and a three panel background scene that included Sheffield's 500th HR, opening day at the brand new stadium, Castillo's infamous ninth inning error or David Wright wearing his oversized Great Gazoo batting helmet?

I changed my vote and gave it to the 1970 yearbook. Not that it'll have much of an impact on this battle. I'm still having internet problems here which is a story and a half. So I'm meanwhile using my smartphone for web access, and on that smaller screen, the yearbooks don't present as well. Condensed for a smartphone, the 1970 yearbook really suffers. The background photos lose much of their detail and look like pixel mush. I realized this when I took a lot at my real world copy, which presents much better in my hands.

I'm still sticking, though, to my points about a) not giving extra credit to yearbooks based on the success of the seasons they represent. Which is different from acknowledging that the yearbooks need to do a good job of depicting the seasons they depict; and therefore that I'm not so sure that the 1970 design automatically rates as one of the best.

Also, it's absolute murder typing posts on a smartphone. Every single word is a struggle.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Edgy MD wrote: A Boy Named Seo wrote: I gave 2010 a sympathy vote. It's super clean, they're embracing the return to blue and orange and have the dudes in all white. Not bad at all. Tough draw, 2k10, keep your head up. Man, that Citi Field logo alone should sink 2010's candidacy.

Sad, little logo still makes me hungry for pizza.