Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.25 1986 vs 1993

[Benjamin Grimm]

1986



1993

[Guest 41Forever]

Normally I like covers that focus on uniform elements. But those tail jerseys were an abomination. The Mets wordmark was constant since 1962 and they went and screwed it up. Who signed off on that?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Is this the Mets yearbook cover derby or the Mets jersey derby? What are we supposed to be judging here? Anyway, the 1993 Mets jerseys with the tails/flourishes aren't ugly. They're classic baseball jersey design -- perhaps the most common uni front design in the sport's history -- the team name in cursive script and underlined. If the Mets went with that design in 1962 ( and actually, they did, up until the 11th hour) ugly would've been about the last word used to describe the trademark. Pointless? Probably. This is around the time eff Wilpon asserted himself as the team's 100% de facto owner and perhaps he wanted to mark his territory with a radical (and otherwise needless) break from tradition. The 1993 gets my vote over the boring 1986 cover. Sometimes, understated elegance doesn't cut it. And no bonus points for winning it all that season. We're voting yearbook covers here, not uniforms. And not W-L records.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Don't like either one. The silver cover thing, were the Mets getting a little too far into the 80s luxury aesthetic. I'm sure there was a copy of the 86 Yearbook in Brian Flanagan's apartment in "Cocktail."

That's an interesting Shea logo in the 93 cover, I think that will tip the scales.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I voted 1993. That 1986 cover is dull and unimaginative. The 1993 cover isn't all that either, but it's a lot better than a solid-colored cover with a logo in the upper half.

[Edgy MD]

I don't know. That shiny silver finish made it feel collectable. I felt like I was part of a class act. It spoke to me of a one-of-a-kind treasure trove of carefully curated memories and landmarks inside.

And it was, of course, a silver anniversary.

[Centerfield]

I feel like it's hard to separate the results.

That 25th Anniversary logo has become iconic to me. When I see it, I think World Champions.

[seawolf17]

Centerfield wrote: I feel like it's hard to separate the results. That 25th Anniversary logo has become iconic to me. When I see it, I think World Champions.

This. And I think I have like eight copies of that 1986 book floating around because I loved it.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Went with the patch.

[RealityChuck]

Two good designs, but I went with the simplicity and elegance of 1986.

[Valadius]

1986 could have benefited from one more element on the cover. 1993 for me.

[stevejrogers]

Going with the simplistic style and elegant script of 1986.

[Centerfield]

Struggling here. The '86 cover stinks, but it has a super awesome piece. But it definitely comes across as a HS kid who didn't do his semester project and pieced it together at the last minute.

"Um, I was going for a simple elegance. Um."

On the other hand, 1993 is just ok at best. I do like the watermarked images in the back. But it also incorporates a logo that I can't stand. As iconic as the 25th anniversary patch is, that swoosh to me is inextricably associated with losing/disappointment.

So it's like trying to be an impartial food critic.

Dish 1 was made by a guy who surfed the internet for 17 minutes, then threw on some bacon in the last three minutes. But it's bacon.

Dish 2 is a very mediocre stew, with some ok elements. But it features mutton. And I hate mutton.

[G-Fafif]

The 25th anniversary logo was genuinely exciting to behold. (Still slightly regret not grabbing a $5 pennant featuring it when I saw it at, I think, JC Penney's 32 years ago, though the ones I bought several months later that say WORLD CHAMPIONS are fine consolation prizes.) The Mets had never before produced anything like that logo. They'd never turned 25 before. Or 24 and thus celebrated their 25th season. This was the first team-specific commemorative patch they ever wore. The World's Fair patch promoted somebody else's neighborhood shindig and the MLB patch wasn't for the Mets (though it does nicely mark any picture in which it appears as from 1969). The silver-anniversary edition of the yearbook was the ideal place to spotlight it. I believe it intentionally strove for simple elegance and achieved it.

The thirtieth season at Shea wasn't exactly an occasion commented upon, even while it was happening, but the Mets invented a worthy milestone for their yearbook. After 1992, I can see not wanting to parade the previous season's New Faces of the Impending Dystopia out front again. The tail that made its debut on that cover looks better on that cover than it did in action. Maybe if we remembered 1993 fondly, we'd get misty for the tail. But we don't.

The tail may have wagged the cover, but it's not the only element tipping its cap. We have Casey's classic road jersey, the Sheacentric Mets logo that hung around the margins of Met marketing (would have made a decent patch) and that evocative collage of Mets history in the background. It's the kind of cover I can stare at from Woodside to Jamaica to my stop. I can also stare at the 1986 cover and be whisked back to 1986, as good a place as a Mets fan stay on to.

This is one of the rare showdowns in which two very different covers from two very different seasons make splendid cases for themselves. The 1986 yearbook shimmers like the season from whence it came. The 1993 season is evidence that you can't judge a season by its yearbook cover.

But it's a neat yearbook cover and, in the only Metsian realm where I can see this happening, I have to take 1993 over 1986.

[Benjamin Grimm]

G-Fafif wrote: ...in the only Metsian realm where I can see this happening, I have to take 1993 over 1986.

And on a day that 2011 eliminated 1969!

[G-Fafif]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: G-Fafif wrote: ...in the only Metsian realm where I can see this happening, I have to take 1993 over 1986. And on a day that 2011 eliminated 1969!

TWO REASONS THERE MIGHT BE A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP CURSE! CLICK HERE!

[stevejrogers]

G-Fafif wrote: The tail that made its debut on that cover looks better on that cover than it did in action. Maybe if we remembered 199l3 fondly, we'd get misty for the tail. But we don't.

Doubtful, there are plenty that still harbor ill will towards the black jerseys, despite early success with 1999 and 2000, as well as 2006.