Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.23 1972 vs 2008

[Benjamin Grimm]

1972



2008

[stevejrogers]

Sweet full bleed color action shots > financial prospectus cover.

[Edgy MD]

Steve's got it. 2008 definitely says, "An investment in the Mets is a safe, conservative addition to your portfolio. From energy innovation to agrobusiness expansion, the Mets are securing smart foundations for a prosperous tomorrow."

[Benjamin Grimm]

I love the jigsaw-puzzle feel of the 1972 cover. It gets my vote.

And for those of you who may not have been checking the Yearbook Cover Derby master thread, an updated look at the full bracket has been posted here.

[Guest 41Forever]

I disagree on this one. I like the 2008 cover, with the divided Shea. The Shea patch was one of the best patch designs the Mets have ever had and the cover echos that.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Despite the corporate feel, the 2008 isn't that bad. I took 1972 though, tough to
vote against that foursome of my youth.

[stevejrogers]

Its a shame it wasn’t until 1977 that the Mets swapped covers when the Revised version came out (next year would be jarring looking at Fregosi on the cover during the pennant run when he was gone by early July) because a Mays cover riding the year out would have been sweet.

[G-Fafif]

2008, as pictured above, is a revised edition without saying exactly that. It's the FINAL SHEA STADIUM edition. Manuel is in for Randolph (who was on the one they sold at the beginning of the season) and Wright is wearing the Final Season patch (which he wasn't on the earlier cover). I can't speak for the contents, though I imagine if they changed the cover, they probably slipped Willie out of the manager's page.

The Final Season logo of the original look meeting the contemporary -- 2008 stepping right up to greet 1964 -- was a spiritual triumph for those of us who assumed the Mets would acknowledge Shea's imminent demise only by promoting where to reserve your season tickets for New World Class Citi Field. Of course it gave them an avenue to sell more stuff (remember the temporary store set up outside Gate E?), but we were not reluctant buyers -- or shall we say preservationists. The logo lives on emblazoned along the Shea Bridge, added a few years ago. I really appreciate the idea of expanding its core pieces to create a yearbook cover.

But I don't think it's effective, not when we want to celebrate Shea Stadium. The deep blue background and pitch-black skyline create too somber a tone. Maybe it's supposed to say please remove your hats for a moment of silence as the sun sets on on Shea, but we're mournful enough in 2008. We don't require the cue. Shea, especially in our youthful memories, lives on as a bright, sunny stadium. This cover is standing by with spades to start turning over dirt.

We also don't need the ever-present strip of Mets who we should really go see, 718-507-TIXX. Shea and Shea's farewell, basking in the sun, should have the cover to itself. We know we have some good players. We can take it from there.

I was conditioned to expect a collection of Mets filling my yearbook cover by the 1972 iteration. It is my first. I was sold so often by our announcers on how great it would be to have this in my baseball library, featuring a team picture suitable for framing, that I asked my mom if she could write a check the New York Mets for $1.50 (including shipping and handling) so it would be delivered to our mailbox. I'd have preferred to have picked it up at Big Shea, but no trip to the promised land was on my docket. I was nine and had only so much agency.

So the 1972 yearbook came unto me, with four Mets busy being four Mets facing out. "This must be how it's done," I figured. "You put your best players on the front." Seaver? Obviously our best pitcher. Jones? Hit .319 last year. McGraw? Lots of saves and stuff. Harrelson? All-Star shortstop the last two years, starter over Kessinger last year. I wasn't of a mind to sort through the roster and speculate on who else could have been cast in a leading role. These four made sense.

It was an endorsement of constancy. These Mets had always been around ("always" meaning howl ong I'd been paying attention, which was about two-and-a-half years). The Mets were Tom Seaver, Cleon Jones, Tug McGraw and Bud Harrelson (along with another pillars of the franchise not pictured) and, presumably, always would be. That was fine as long as the Mets were winning, as they were when the yearbook arrived in the mail. I got antsier and wanted new players when winning became less common, but that's a later story. This cover cemented my team's identity for me on a practical level.

That logo in the middle is also a triumph. Having it here allowed me for the first time to really study its components: bridge, buildings, same NY from their caps in the upper left hand corner, that beautiful script "Mets" from their uniforms, that stitching like it's a baseball. I might not have used the word in 1972, but it struck me as really intricate. I didn't know that every building was supposed to represent something, but I got that the New York Mets were really the New York Mets. My attempts to replicate the logo in pencil were many, if messy. Took me a while to realize there was no tail on the "s". I'd learned to write in script the year before, so that made for a bonus revelation.

The overall presentation is a little on the staid side (talk about your annual report covers), but forty-six years of Mets fandom later, it sure is effective.

[RealityChuck]

1972 did a great job of matching up action pictures, one of the few where it really works.

2008 is both dull (the general layout) and too busy (the tiny photos).

[Zvon]

These early 70's YB covers, these that I bought myself at Shea, are just too nostalgic to be overcome.

Yes, Manuel has a page in the '08 revised. He looks incredibly happy.

G-Fafif wrote: McGraw? Lots of saves and stuff.

.

lol. Yep, that about covers it.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Here's something that's nothing short of fascinating that I just discovered.

You may want to be sitting down for this.

From 1962 through 1974, with the exception of 1971, "Yearbook" was actually two words: "Year Book". From 1975 on, it's always been a single compound word: "Yearbook". (Although the 1993 cover puts a Mets logo between "YEAR" and "BOOK" so it's hard to say for sure if they're presenting it as one word or two.)

See? I told you! Admit it. Your world has just totally been rocked.

[G-Fafif]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Your world has just totally been rocked.

It has! I've noticed the space along the way, especially today with '72, but I never thought of it as a thing. But I guess it is.

[Guest cooby]

72 was my first

[Edgy MD]

G-Fafif wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Your world has just totally been rocked. It has! I've noticed the space along the way, especially today with '72, but I never thought of it as a thing. But I guess it is.

Everything about the game evolves this way. Base Ball became Base-Ball became Baseball. Home Run became Home-Run became Homerun. First Baseman became First-Baseman became Firstbaseman. Etc.

Sometimes they skip the intermediate hyphenation step, but you get the drift. The world is contracting.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy sits back and says, "amiright?"

[Guest 41Forever]

Here's something that's nothing short of fascinating that I just discovered. You may want to be sitting down for this. From 1962 through 1974, with the exception of 1971, "Yearbook" was actually two words: "Year Book". From 1975 on, it's always been a single compound word: "Yearbook". (Although the 1993 cover puts a Mets logo between "YEAR" and "BOOK" so it's hard to say for sure if they're presenting it as one word or two.) See? I told you! Admit it. Your world has just totally been rocked.

Damn! I never noticed that.

[Valadius]

I get plenty of annual reports from hospitals and health care advocacy groups. I want something that says baseball, not how many donated kidneys you received.