Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.12 1985 vs 1994

[Benjamin Grimm]

1985



1994

[Edgy MD]

1994 looks more like an apparel catalog, and betrays the absence of marquee figures, but it's far superior composition, so I give them that.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

85 accomplished a contemporary design that doesn't look awful today, and I like how they use the racing stripe and pinstripe as though they belong together, which they really never did.

94 is a nice picture and somewhat more successful than '79 in using uni detail.

[Guest 41Forever]

I love uniforms and especially the little details, such as the patches.

[Edgy MD]

I'm making a yearbook in 1985, it'd be hard not to make that cover all about Gooden. Or maybe Gooden and Straw, seeing how the team was defending consecutive Rookie of the Year wins.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Our first poll was close, but was followed by ten consecutive landslides. It looks like we may finally have another competitive poll. 1994 currently leads 1985 by a tally of 4 to 3.

I went with 1985. A picture of a sleeve? Boring!

[stevejrogers]

As much as I want all things in ‘94 baseball erased from history books, the cover is strikingly more dynamic. Plus it was a chance to honor the ‘69 crew without reminding the buyer of what was happening on the field that year.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I just noticed that 125th Anniversary logo on the 1994 cover. 1994 was 24 years ago, so that means that next year is the 150th Anniversary of 1869, which is the year of the Cincinnati Red Stockings and the first professional baseball team.

[Lefty Specialist]

Toughie, but I went with '94. I don't like Keith's head between Doc's legs.

[A Boy Named Seo]

I like both like and dislike aspects of each. Everything is sweet w/ the uniform background of 85, but the 3 pics dropped in the way they are lacking imagination. The sleeve patch pic on 94 is really nice, but the fonts at the top absolutely suck in both color and style. Neither of these is gonna go the distance in this comp.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Lefty Specialist wrote: I don't like Keith's head between Doc's legs.

I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out!

That is rather unfortunate.

[RealityChuck]

At least they used decent photos in 1985. But the design of 1994 is superior.

[Guest cooby]

First one that I really can't decide

[Guest d'Kong76]

I've often felt that the barcode on publications should be relegated to the
back cover with whatever beer de año is being hawked. Not an easy decision
but I took classy looking 1994 over the sentiment the 1985 brought back.

[G-Fafif]

The marketing department had a tough task after dreadful 1993. Theoretically they could have imitated the 1985 cover. They still had a first baseman, a manager and Doc, if not the racing stripe. But times had changed too much to make that appealing, thus the turning back time to 1969 via that closeup of the patch. When I saw it 24 years ago, I had the same thought I did when I first encountered 1979's yearbook: I guess they don't want us to think about the state of the current team, so they'll mesmerize us with a logo. After commemorating the 25th anniversary in the 25th season, they commemorated the 25th anniversary of their first championship in the actual 25th anniversary year. (Math, huh?) As with the logo they wore in 1986, seeing the Miracle Mets patch always takes me back to what 1994 there was. Compared to 1993, it was a wonderland, and I don't mind being reminded of it, despite the strike that ended it prematurely. Still, like '79, it seems like a give-up on the present -- and if they were really that concerned with celebrating '69, maybe offer up the specter of Seaver and company in conjunction with that patch.

Also, as long as I'm staring at it longer than I ever have before, the MLB 125 insignia plus the UPC mark makes everything a bit too boxy at the bottom of the page.

The 1985 cover struck me then and now as solid. Remember, this was the first season in ages in which the Mets entered a season with a sense of accomplishment directly behind them and a ton of confidence about what lay directly ahead of them. Surprising, after seeing how they've retrofitted other acquisitions over the years, that they didn't make new Met Gary Carter a part of the scene. It's as if they were fully loaded and had plenty to choose from.

Maybe not the most thrilling of designs, but it gets the job done. The Mets have the most explosive young pitcher in the game, a first baseman who has led them to recently unscaled heights and a crafty manager overseeing their rise. And, per Homer Simpson when he entered the nuclear power plant design competition for children, this racing stripe here I feel is pretty sharp. Needless to say, 1985 doesn't need to divert focus to other seasons. Helluva season when the yearbook was new, helluva season in the rearview.

I appreciate 1994 working a deep count, but I'll take 1985's single to right.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

If this Yearbook Cover Derby has nothing else going for it, G-Fafif's daily comparisons of the two competing covers is always worth the price of admission. Maybe even worth twice the price of admission!

[G-Fafif]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: If this Yearbook Cover Derby has nothing else going for it, G-Fafif's daily comparisons of the two competing covers is always worth the price of admission. Maybe even worth twice the price of admission!

Thank you for providing such a stimulating exercise. As much fun as Mets baseball, and weather isn't a factor.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: If this Yearbook Cover Derby has nothing else going for it, G-Fafif's daily comparisons of the two competing covers is always worth the price of admission. Maybe even worth twice the price of admission!

I've been meaning to write the same post for several days, now. He's just killing it on these yearbook threads.
When this contest is over, his posts could be edited to make one helluva magazine article, assuming people still read those anymore. The imagined piece would, ideally, appear in a Mets yearbook -- the yearbook about yearbooks -- if only the thin-skinned Mets could absorb some smart criticism.

[Benjamin Grimm]

If not a magazine article, it would make for a fine blog post.