Master Index of Archived Threads


Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.30 1965 vs 2015

1965

11 votes

2015

2 votes

Benjamin Grimm Apr 21 2018 04:18 AM

1965 2015

bmfc1 Apr 21 2018 06:40 AM Re: Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.30 1965 vs 2015

1965's cover is one of the best. In 1965, placing a drawing on top of a picture wasn't easy. I hope that there is no one here who will ask "the most what?".

cooby Apr 21 2018 08:02 AM Re: Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.30 1965 vs 2015

Really the little kid ones don't do anything for me, but the Worlds Fair emblem swung me toward 1965

41Forever Apr 21 2018 08:11 AM Re: Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.30 1965 vs 2015

2015 is good for a modern cover. But hard to beat a new Shea.

d'Kong76 Apr 21 2018 08:52 AM Re: Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.30 1965 vs 2015

Yeah, I haven't really liked much from the 2000's but this one's kinda snappy. Voted for the '65 though.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 21 2018 09:22 AM Re: Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.30 1965 vs 2015

I'm with youse. I figured that if everyone's tastes are sorta like mine, the Mullins would romp in the first round. They still all might. But I like that 2015 cover. I don't have any recollection of it even though I'm certain I own a copy. It's probably one of those yearbooks I bought mainly out of habit and barely looked at. It reminds me of this pop art piece from the early 60s consisting of disembodied heads -- I can't remember the name of the work or the artist at the moment. If there was ever a yearbook candidate for a revised edition, 2015 might be the archetype. Cuddyer would be out, and Noah, Conforto, Matz and Babe Ruth Cespedes would be in. But do I like it more than the Mullin? I'm not sure.

G-Fafif Apr 21 2018 11:03 AM Re: Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.30 1965 vs 2015

2015 is a pretty smooth cover. Perhaps inspired by Hollywood Squares or The Brady Bunch. It was actually well thought out for a contemporary iteration. The corners and the center players are in blue jerseys, the top and side middle Mets are in pinstripes. They could have had fun with the tic-tac-toe nature of the design but didn't want to be too silly, apparently. That's what's missing from this decade's output, most of which hasn't been atrocious. Other than 2017's subtle but smart "we've got each other's backs" motif, there's no trace of whimsy, no playfulness, no "isn't baseball the most?" David and Curtis smiling at the bottom of the staircase the Mets were ready to start ascending in 2014 was pleasant in an obligatory sort of way. The 2012 and 2013 historical pastiches were treats as treasure hunts, but little about it popped. The 2015 team turned out to be more fun than a barrel of Mackeys (if not Mookies). Their yearbook could have been an emblem of the fun to come. Instead, it just looks handsome and then sits politely. C'mon 2015, show us your personality. It's dying to come out. You want whimsical? You want Willard. He's the most! Mullin's Mets had the most fans in town and the fans had the most fun in baseball. 1965's cover feels of its time artistically and timeless in terms of baseball like it oughta be. A crowd. A kid. A Fair next door, even. You gaze at this and I ask you: is there anyplace you'd want to be more than SHEA STADIUM NEW YORK? Is there anything you'd rather put down FIFTY CENTS for than YEAR BOOK 1965? The googly-eyed "OO" alone is worth the eight bits. (Save a couple of bucks for Beatles '65 -- turn it on while you flip through and you'll feel fine.) Other than 1962, 1965 seems to be the year from which I don't have any yearbook, revised, reprinted or otherwise. If I came across it, I think I'd swoon. Or SWOON.

Zvon Apr 21 2018 11:31 AM Re: Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.30 1965 vs 2015

'65 wins by a logo!

SteveJRogers Apr 21 2018 03:02 PM Re: Yearbook Cover Derby Round 1.30 1965 vs 2015

Mullin over an average cover of recent times.