Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.05 1963 vs 2017

[Benjamin Grimm]

1963



2017

[Edgy MD]

I don't like either of those much. The first has too much white space waiting to be filled in. The second needs a face or two. Excitement isn't in backs. And the notion that Wright and Reyes are represented by fans just says we're hanging on to a past that we can't quite turn the page on.

Neither is quite sure what the story of the season is. Which is a shame, because years both had a story to tell.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Neither is quite sure what the story of the season is. Which is a shame, because years both had a story to tell.

Which season story should a yearbook cover tell: the yearbook's season or the season before? I suppose it depends on the year.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I went with 2017. It's colorful and dynamic. 1963, the year that Willard Mullin apparently took a break (although the did the Yankees yearbook cover that year) is a particularly unimaginative cover. Just a stock image of Mr. Met.

I think that 2017 is trying to promote the connection between the fans and the players, but to me, in retrospect, all of those backs says "2017: The year the Mets take a big step backwards."

The 1963 cover is, somewhat surprisingly, one of only two yearbook covers ever to feature Mr. Met. (The other was 1976.)

[Lefty Specialist]

Well, I guess in '63 there weren't a lot of 1962 highlights to put on the cover, and with a team that bad you couldn't plan on putting any particular players on it either. Ergo, giant Mr. Met.

The 2017 model, it takes you five seconds to even realize it IS a yearbook, down there in the lower right-hand corner. The pictures aren't very stirring, either. And the kid in the Wright shirt is just kind of sad considering David didn't play in '16 and wouldn't play in '17 either.

So I went with the simple, painfully white Mr. Met.

[Guest 41Forever]

I went with 2017. I see what they were doing there -- players names on the jerseys for both the fans and their heroes. Bonding!

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Neither is quite sure what the story of the season is. Which is a shame, because years both had a story to tell. Which season story should a yearbook cover tell: the yearbook's season or the season before? I suppose it depends on the year.

Well, the yearbook's season, I think, but if the previous season was particularly lovely, the story you're hoping to tell about the current season is "This season is going to be filled with all the thrills of last year's season, and then some!"

[Theoldmole]

1963 has the innocence. 2017 too busy. In general I like art over photography for the covers.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

2017 theme was "looking ahead," the only thing missing was a speeding train in the background. I do like that they incoroprated solidarity between fans and players.

1963 gets historical credit as I believe that's the maiden appearance of Mr. Met.

I find myself partial to all the ones I recall as a kid, so I'm going to wait to vote a few days to see if I can beat that back. I will say, a single cartoon image on a 2018 yearbook would be flushed immediately.

[Guest cooby]

A speeding train about to wreck

[Guest d'Kong76]

Went with '63, I'm particularly fond of that Mr. Met era/look.

[stevejrogers]

2017 is a better version of the college brochure that the 2010 one is.

[Lefty Specialist]

SteveJRogers wrote: 2017 is a better version of the college brochure that the 2010 one is.

Wow, that's it! I was wondering what it looked like and you nailed it.

[G-Fafif]

This is a battle for the ages. Or a battle of the ages.

I imagine that had the 2017 yearbook caught me while impressionable, it would have made a greater impression upon purchase. I scooped it up last Opening Day, gave it a couple of leaf-throughs and more or less forgot about it. Before this competition, I couldn't have described from memory the 2017 cover. By late April of 2017, I couldn't have described it from memory, either. Now that I'm compelled to examine the cover closely, I'm reasonably impressed. Last year's glance didn't do justice to the "we've got your backs/you've got our backs" concept, which is pretty strong. I appreciate that Wright lives on as central to Mets fan allegiance and that somebody's old black Reyes jersey made the cut (nobody would go to the plate more in 2017 than Jose).

Inevitably my eye is drawn to the one instantly recognizable image, Asdrubal Cabrera raising his arms in victory after hitting one of the most momentous home runs in recent Mets history. To consign it to one box among many doesn't indicate how important it was to the fortunes of the 2016 Wild Card New York Mets. Those Mets probably didn't go far enough to merit this comparison, but to me it's a bit like making Bobby Thomson's Shot Heard Round the World one of many among a collage of Giants Who Helped Win The Pennant (Win The Pennant). I love a good collage, but if you have a strong central image that tells your story in one blast, I'd love to see it. Had the 2007 yearbook, for example, been graced simply by Endy making his catch (yeah, I know, they lost the game) or, theoretically had he not been traded, the 1981 yearbook been focused on Steve Henderson crossing home plate the previous June 14, I'd count those as aesthetic and journalistic successes.

So Asdrubal leaves me wanting more and bigger Asdrubal, inadvertently making me less thrilled to notice Neil Walker accepting high-fives (though kudos for a picture capturing the 1986 throwbacks in 2016).

The 1963 cover doesn't lack for a strong central image. It certainly conveys a simpler time, and the debut of Mr. Met definitely rates as a historic moment in the history of the franchise. I wonder who they considered their yearbook audience in 1963, given the kid-friendly cover. They always used illustrations in the '60s, but the Mullins were clever and knowing, portraits adults could get a kick out of. In a way this was forward-looking, as the Mets did seem marketing-conscious the way they began sticking Mr. Met on things, including the 45 for "Meet the Mets". Anecdotally, I have detected, among those whose were youths (or yutes) in 1963, a specific fondness for that Mets season, distinct from 1962. Maybe they really were saying "Metsie, Metsie, Metsie," and somehow Mr. Met on the front of the yearbook nudged them along.

A very good friend gave me a copy of the 1963 yearbook in 2010, and both the act of generosity and the authenticity of the item ("holy crap, this was handled by somebody inside the Polo Grounds") blew me away. Hard not to give it an extra point for sentimentality. While I'd love to swear I'm judging each entry on its own merits within the vacuum of design, I'm reminded of what the crooked judge in The Verdict instructed the jury when it heard testimony he didn't want expressed:

“Her entire testimony must be stricken from the record. You shouldn’t have heard it, but you did. Now, that was my mistake...and you must strike it from your minds, give it no weight.”

It didn't work in the movie, and it won't necessarily work here. That said, I also think I will need corrective surgery for all the leaning I do toward my sentimental/nostalgic impulses in this competition, thus I'm going to try to straighten out my balance just a tad and surprise myself (in light of how instinctively I tend to dismiss the Mets' modern efforts) with a vote for 2017. A good look at what it seemed to be trying to accomplish won me over.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well said. Your point about the "one central image" resonates with my impressions of the two 1987 covers, neither of which have appeared yet in this competition. All that a 1987 cover needs is a full-size image of Jesse Orosco with his arms in the air, and the words "WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP EDITION" but no, we got a logo and then an unimpressive montage. But we'll get to that soon. The original 1987 cover comes up next Monday, and the revised cover a couple of weeks later.

[Edgy MD]

I like numbers, and am a big reader of Mets by the Numbers, but we've really made them into more than they are, and this cover is an example. Numbers are an introduction into a player's wider story. The first word, not the last.

The idea that a statue in honor of Jackie Robinson should just be a big 42, or that a film version of his story should be titled 42, is silly, I think.

But if this cover is about backs and not numbers, OK. Mebbe I misread.

[MFS62]

I handled the 1963 yearbook in the Polo Grounds, too.

Later

[G-Fafif]

MFS62 wrote: I handled the 1963 yearbook in the Polo Grounds, too.

/adds touching MFS62's 1963 yearbook to bucket list

[Zvon]

Mr. Mets debut! Say no more. 1963 ftw.

I think maybe the wall of photo YB covers are being hurt by their random placing against the artsy ones.

And lets all be most thankful that they didn't use a photo for the '63 cover.