S.I. The Last Iconic Baseball Card: '89 UD Griffey

[UMich92]

ICON: a sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it.

Wagner T206 = Icon of tobacco cards in general (pre 1913)
Ruth 33 Goudey = Icon of war year cards (1914-1945)
Mantle 52 Topps = Icon of golden age cards (1946-1969)
Mattingly 84 Donruss = Icon of boom years (1981-1988)
Griffey 89 UD = Icon of modern baseball cards (1989-present)
Pujols 01 BC auto = Icon of Bowman Chrome phenomenon / autographed rookie cards

Exactly. The Pujols is the card that represents this era.

Alex

 

[matfanofold]

You'll find that a lot of stuff that was around before the internet was around will be cited far less frequently than stuff that came about during the internet age. Current events and current news all gets done to death.

This bears repeating: Don't forget that iconic to a person immersed in the hobby means something completely different to someone who knows nothing about the hobby.

There are 2,380,000 results on google for 2001 bowman chrome albert pujols. There are 1,650,000 for 1989 ken griffey upper deck. Now that does not automatically say that the Pujols is iconic but it is a stat.

Stats are often used like a drunk man uses a lamp post, to lean against, and not necessairly to shed light. Infact, I'd look at it as a card thats 20 years old still getting 1.6 million results today is much more impressive than a card thats 8 years old, of a hobby superstar right now getting 2.3 mil.

Now lets all appreciate the difference between "Iconic within the hobby" and flat out "Iconic"

The bottom line here is that the exact definition of an "icon" without exacting context is up for debate. However, after reading this whole thread, it's safe to say that ~80% of us seem to think for a card to become "Iconic" it must:

1. Be well known in and out of the hobby.
2. Withstand the test of time through newer generations.
3. Define the hobby for its time.
4. Evoke nostaligia.

Taking this in to consideration, it's clear to me that the Pujols BC RC AU /500 does not fully meet any of these stipulations, yet. It is well known, but not outside the hobby and perhaps not fully within the hobby as a whole.(remember, we are all not prospectors). It's not old enough to tell if it can or will withstand the test of time. It has defined the "prospector" part of our hobby, but does it define our hobby as a whole?? I do not believe it has reached a level of evoking nostaligia save for the few who may have owned it or chased it.

Any how, these are just opinions, but they seem to be embraced by a large percentage of this community.

 

[nyyankeesfan.13722]

You'll find that a lot of stuff that was around before the internet was around will be cited far less frequently than stuff that came about during the internet age. Current events and current news all gets done to death.

This bears repeating: Don't forget that iconic to a person immersed in the hobby means something completely different to someone who knows nothing about the hobby.

There are 2,380,000 results on google for 2001 bowman chrome albert pujols. There are 1,650,000 for 1989 ken griffey upper deck. Now that does not automatically say that the Pujols is iconic but it is a stat.

1. Be well known in and out of the hobby.
2. Withstand the test of time through newer generations.
3. Define the hobby for its time.
4. Evoke nostaligia.

Taking this in to consideration, it's clear to me that the Pujols BC RC AU /500 does not fully meet any of these stipulations, yet. It is well known, but not outside the hobby and perhaps not fully within the hobby as a whole.(remember, we are all not prospectors). It's not old enough to tell if it can or will withstand the test of time. It has defined the "prospector" part of our hobby, but does it define our hobby as a whole?? I do not believe it has reached a level of evoking nostaligia save for the few who may have owned it or chased it.

I would say no cards are iconic then because I would say that very few people outside of people who have actually collected know the difference between a 1989 Upper Deck Griffey and a 1990 Upper Deck Griffey. I feel this entire thread has become a the past was great thread where anything nowadays is horrible.

 

[matfanofold]

You'll find that a lot of stuff that was around before the internet was around will be cited far less frequently than stuff that came about during the internet age. Current events and current news all gets done to death.

This bears repeating: Don't forget that iconic to a person immersed in the hobby means something completely different to someone who knows nothing about the hobby.

[quote="nyyankeesfan.13722":24myuuh0]There are 2,380,000 results on google for 2001 bowman chrome albert pujols. There are 1,650,000 for 1989 ken griffey upper deck. Now that does not automatically say that the Pujols is iconic but it is a stat.

1. Be well known in and out of the hobby.
2. Withstand the test of time through newer generations.
3. Define the hobby for its time.
4. Evoke nostaligia.

Taking this in to consideration, it's clear to me that the Pujols BC RC AU /500 does not fully meet any of these stipulations, yet. It is well known, but not outside the hobby and perhaps not fully within the hobby as a whole.(remember, we are all not prospectors). It's not old enough to tell if it can or will withstand the test of time. It has defined the "prospector" part of our hobby, but does it define our hobby as a whole?? I do not believe it has reached a level of evoking nostaligia save for the few who may have owned it or chased it.

I would say no cards are iconic then because I would say that very few people outside of people who have actually collected know the difference between a 1989 Upper Deck Griffey and a 1990 Upper Deck Griffey. I feel this entire thread has become a the past was great thread where anything nowadays is horrible.[/quote:24myuuh0]


Your completely entitled to your opinion.

However, I vastly disagree.

 

[gracecollector]

ICON: a sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it.

Wagner T206 = Icon of tobacco cards in general (pre 1913)
Ruth 33 Goudey = Icon of war year cards (1914-1945)
Mantle 52 Topps = Icon of golden age cards (1946-1969)
Mattingly 84 Donruss = Icon of boom years (1981-1988)
Griffey 89 UD = Icon of modern baseball cards (1989-present)
Pujols 01 BC auto = Icon of Bowman Chrome phenomenon / autographed rookie cards

Exactly. The Pujols is the card that represents this era.

Alex

That's not what I meant. Griffey is the card that best represents the modern era. Pujols is an iconic card only to dedicated hobbyists and, as a symbol, represents the smaller subset of high-end autographed rookie cards. It is iconic, but to a smaller portion of collectors that the entire population of collectors. Griffey's 89 UD card is a broad appeal icon of modern era cards.

 

[sportscardtheory]

ICON: a sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it.

Wagner T206 = Icon of tobacco cards in general (pre 1913)
Ruth 33 Goudey = Icon of war year cards (1914-1945)
Mantle 52 Topps = Icon of golden age cards (1946-1969)
Mattingly 84 Donruss = Icon of boom years (1981-1988)
Griffey 89 UD = Icon of modern baseball cards (1989-present)
Pujols 01 BC auto = Icon of Bowman Chrome phenomenon / autographed rookie cards

Exactly. The Pujols is the card that represents this era.

Alex

That's not what I meant. Griffey is the card that best represents the modern era. Pujols is an iconic card only to dedicated hobbyists and, as a symbol, represents the smaller subset of high-end autographed rookie cards. It is iconic, but to a smaller portion of collectors that the entire population of collectors. Griffey's 89 UD card is a broad appeal icon of modern era cards.

The Pujols is certainly as iconic as the Mattingly, if not more so. If the Mattingly is only iconic due to being the most popular card during the "boom" years, the Pujols is the same for auto'ed RCs.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

What's weird about the Pujols is that he actually *was* a rookie in 2001, so his 2001 BC issue is different than typical Bowman first year cards...the card is actually *not* representative of minor league players Bowman is known for.

ICON: a sign or representation that stands for its object by virtue of a resemblance or analogy to it.

Wagner T206 = Icon of tobacco cards in general (pre 1913)
Ruth 33 Goudey = Icon of war year cards (1914-1945)
Mantle 52 Topps = Icon of golden age cards (1946-1969)
Mattingly 84 Donruss = Icon of boom years (1981-1988)
Griffey 89 UD = Icon of modern baseball cards (1989-present)
Pujols 01 BC auto = Icon of Bowman Chrome phenomenon / autographed rookie cards

Exactly. The Pujols is the card that represents this era.

Alex

That's not what I meant. Griffey is the card that best represents the modern era. Pujols is an iconic card only to dedicated hobbyists and, as a symbol, represents the smaller subset of high-end autographed rookie cards. It is iconic, but to a smaller portion of collectors that the entire population of collectors. Griffey's 89 UD card is a broad appeal icon of modern era cards.

The Pujols is certainly as iconic as the Mattingly, if not more so. If the Mattingly is only iconic due to being the most popular card during the "boom" years, the Pujols is the same for auto'ed RCs.

 

[KOBEARODLT]

just read the article in my new SI, the thing about card shops going out of buisness is a little scary but the thing they dont take into consideration is the fact that the internet is like one big card shop that you can go to without even leaving the house.