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

[cowboysrule48]

I just doubt Pujols will ever be an iconic card. The best comparison I can make to Albert is to WWE Superstars. The Mantle, Griffey, and Wagners are like Hogan, The Rock, and Stone Cold of Sports Cards. Albert at the very best would be Shawn Michaels, very talented, but never can be the one to carry the company to mainstream popularity.

Like I said before. I could ask my mother who Mantle, Ruth, Griffey etc were. She would know, however she would not know who Albert Pujols was. That is why his cards will never be considered iconic. Just as most non-baseball fans have probably never heard of greats like Jimmie Foxx.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I just doubt Pujols will ever be an iconic card. The best comparison I can make to Albert is to WWE Superstars. The Mantle, Griffey, and Wagners are like Hogan, The Rock, and Stone Cold of Sports Cards. Albert at the very best would be Shawn Michaels, very talented, but never can be the one to carry the company to mainstream popularity.

Like I said before. I could ask my mother who Mantle, Ruth, Griffey etc were. She would know, however she would not know who Albert Pujols was. That is why his cards will never be considered iconic. Just as most non-baseball fans have probably never heard of greats like Jimmie Foxx.

Sort of like the answer -- who are three people who have never been in my kitchen.

Pujols will never be iconic because cowboysrule48's mother doesn't know who he is.

 

[beefycheddar]

I just doubt Pujols will ever be an iconic card. The best comparison I can make to Albert is to WWE Superstars. The Mantle, Griffey, and Wagners are like Hogan, The Rock, and Stone Cold of Sports Cards. Albert at the very best would be Shawn Michaels, very talented, but never can be the one to carry the company to mainstream popularity.

Like I said before. I could ask my mother who Mantle, Ruth, Griffey etc were. She would know, however she would not know who Albert Pujols was. That is why his cards will never be considered iconic. Just as most non-baseball fans have probably never heard of greats like Jimmie Foxx.

Sort of like the answer -- who are three people who have never been in my kitchen.

Pujols will never be iconic because cowboysrule48's mother doesn't know who he is.

More so in general, I'd bet less then 30% of the casual sports watching population know who he is. I'd bet 90%+ know who Griffey, Mantle, or Ruth is. The only modern player who reached that level for positive reasons is Derek Jeter.

 

[G $MONEY$]

Based on quite a few of the definitions I have seen on here, the 2007 Topps Jeter/Mantle/Bush card would be iconic. It is recognizable by more than just card people, it is relatively affordable for anyone to own, and it was in a low end base product.

You make very good points about the Jeter/Bush, but to be truly iconic, it has to stand the test of time. That card was "iconic" for maybe 6 months, if that (more like a few months). Nowadays (just 2 years later) most non hobby people would have no idea what that card is and i highly doubt 20 years from now people will still be talking about that card, like we still talk about Griffey UD, Mantle Topps, Wagner t206 or even the Mattingly Donruss. The 86 Donruss rated rookie of Jose Canseco started off pretty Iconic and was very popular for several years after its release, it just did not obviously "stand the test of time".

 

[matfanofold]

Based on quite a few of the definitions I have seen on here, the 2007 Topps Jeter/Mantle/Bush card would be iconic. It is recognizable by more than just card people, it is relatively affordable for anyone to own, and it was in a low end base product.

You make very good points about the Jeter/Bush, but to be truly iconic, it has to stand the test of time. That card was "iconic" for maybe 6 months, if that (more like a few months). Nowadays (just 2 years later) most non hobby people would have no idea what that card is and i highly doubt 20 years from now people will still be talking about that card, like we still talk about Griffey UD, Mantle Topps, Wagner t206 or even the Mattingly Donruss. The 86 Donruss rated rookie of Jose Canseco started off pretty Iconic and was very popular for several years after its release, it just did not obviously "stand the test of time".

Well said..

 

[MattinglyAlexander]

^^
Once Jeter retires and hits the hall... and if Presidential collecting keeps gaining popularity....and if people are ever informed that President Bush wasn't really the devil.... the card will be sorta iconic.

Personally, I'd like to have an autod photo from the video below.
[youtube:36d0q44d]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evb489N11Q4[/youtube:36d0q44d]
[youtube:36d0q44d]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=631knZM9Uiw[/youtube:36d0q44d]

 

[sportscardtheory]

I honestly believe the 1990 Score Bo Jackson black and white FB/BB card is an "iconic" card. It is to this day one of the most popular cards ever created and still sells for good prices. I have seen it sell from anywhere between $.25 to $6, mostly around $3-$4, but for a perceived "common", it still outsells most non-rookie "commons" of the 1990s.

 

[predatorkj]

Based on quite a few of the definitions I have seen on here, the 2007 Topps Jeter/Mantle/Bush card would be iconic. It is recognizable by more than just card people, it is relatively affordable for anyone to own, and it was in a low end base product.

But it defines nothing.

 

[predatorkj]

I just doubt Pujols will ever be an iconic card. The best comparison I can make to Albert is to WWE Superstars. The Mantle, Griffey, and Wagners are like Hogan, The Rock, and Stone Cold of Sports Cards. Albert at the very best would be Shawn Michaels, very talented, but never can be the one to carry the company to mainstream popularity.

Like I said before. I could ask my mother who Mantle, Ruth, Griffey etc were. She would know, however she would not know who Albert Pujols was. That is why his cards will never be considered iconic. Just as most non-baseball fans have probably never heard of greats like Jimmie Foxx.

Sort of like the answer -- who are three people who have never been in my kitchen.

Pujols will never be iconic because cowboysrule48's mother doesn't know who he is.

Trust me...more people don't know about him than those that do.Lets put it that way.

 

[011873]

Ok, first off let me say that the 93 Topps, UD and Pinnalce Jeters in the article were actually MY cards that an SI employee bought from me at the WP show. How do I know? Because he asked me for a receipt and out of curiosity I asked him why and thats when he told me the cards will be used in the upcoming article.

I did ask him why not just take a scan of the DJ's online and he said that SI would rather have the actual cards.

Anyway, my take on this article.

Like most negative Hobby stories, some very important facts and reasons were left out.

Sales in 1991 were 1.2b and now its 200m. To a novice, that drop could only mean the Hobby is dead. But for anyone who knows the history of the Hobby, they know thats not the case.

Why were there 1.2b in sales in 1991? Because EVERY company was, MASS PRODUCING their cards in every sport. That year was the pinnacle of the boom years and everyone was buying, from kids to investors to collectors. People would take CASES and stock them away. Since this was happening, card companies kept printing and printing and printing until the cows came home.

For the most part, collectors/ investors didnt get the hint that with everybody stocking away piles and palets of cards (and 100 ct lots) cards really had no where to go but down..way down.

No product produced today, not even reg topps, can come close to matching production numbers from 1991 because no one mass produces anylonger.


There are also way less comapnies making cards, especially in FB. Werent there like a million companies making cards then?

They seem to try to make a statemet with "Jeter has 8 rookie cards while Pujols has 43" meaning thats way too many. Again, that what a novice would think. We know that DJ's LEAST produced base rookie was made in more quantities than MOST of Pujols. Why else would Jeters worst rookie book 5-6 times LESS than Puljos worst? All about quantity.

How in the world can anyone say the 01 BC Pujols isnt iconic?
It is THE CARD of the modern Baseball Hobby.

You show that card for a second to a collector, he will know what it is. That card stops collectors in their step. That card MADE Bowman Chrome autos. That card is what people hope their prospects turn out to be. In a list of most influential cards of the last 25 years, that card would be near the top.

Anyway, I hope UD DOESNT take MLB to court and I hope they make cards with only the PA license therefore opening the door for the return of Prospect Premieres and SP Prospects as well as probably some RETIRED PLAYER only sets which were banned by MLB.

 

[predatorkj]

Ok, first off let me say that the 93 Topps, UD and Pinnalce Jeters in the article were actually MY cards that an SI employee bought from me at the WP show. How do I know? Because he asked me for a receipt and out of curiosity I asked him why and thats when he told me the cards will be used in the upcoming article.

I did ask him why not just take a scan of the DJ's online and he said that SI would rather have the actual cards.

Anyway, my take on this article.

Like most negative Hobby stories, some very important facts and reasons were left out.

Sales in 1991 were 1.2b and now its 200m. To a novice, that drop could only mean the Hobby is dead. But for anyone who knows the history of the Hobby, they know thats not the case.

Why were there 1.2b in sales in 1991? Because EVERY company was, MASS PRODUCING their cards in every sport. That year was the pinnacle of the boom years and everyone was buying, from kids to investors to collectors. People would take CASES and stock them away. Since this was happening, card companies kept printing and printing and printing until the cows came home.

For the most part, collectors/ investors didnt get the hint that with everybody stocking away piles and palets of cards (and 100 ct lots) cards really had no where to go but down..way down.

No product produced today, not even reg topps, can come close to matching production numbers from 1991 because no one mass produces anylonger.


There are also way less comapnies making cards, especially in FB. Werent there like a million companies making cards then?

They seem to try to make a statemet with "Jeter has 8 rookie cards while Pujols has 43" meaning thats way too many. Again, that what a novice would think. We know that DJ's LEAST produced base rookie was made in more quantities than MOST of Pujols. Why else would Jeters worst rookie book 5-6 times LESS than Puljos worst? All about quantity.

How in the world can anyone say the 01 BC Pujols isnt iconic?
It is THE CARD of the modern Baseball Hobby.

You show that card for a second to a collector, he will know what it is. That card stops collectors in their step. That card MADE Bowman Chrome autos. That card is what people hope their prospects turn out to be. In a list of most influential cards of the last 25 years, that card would be near the top.

Anyway, I hope UD DOESNT take MLB to court and I hope they make cards with only the PA license therefore opening the door for the return of Prospect Premieres and SP Prospects as well as probably some RETIRED PLAYER only sets which were banned by MLB.

You do make good points on the quanity of the Jeter cards versus the Pujols cards.I agree totally with that.

But you just proved your own point wrong if you, indeed, were calling the Pujols chrome iconic.For a card to be iconic it really can't be as young as Pujols's card is.When the Mantle came out or even the Griffey...they weren't iconic.They were just popular such as the Pujols.They became iconic over time.And also due to the fact that they were easily recognizable to the non collecting world.This is something I would think most people would agree on.Now while a lot of people know who Pujols is...not everyone does.And they certainly wouldn't know which card was the card to have of his.

I also think as we go forwards...like has been said in this thread numerous times...cards will become less and less iconic.Too much rarity and too much scarcity will and can do this.The niche thing is also a problem.Now days you have prospector types, set builders, player collectors, team collectors, GU collectors, auto collectors, and inserts collectors.A good portion of these were not present at the time of the release of the Griffey on back.There were some inserts but not many.There were no autos or GU.There weren't as many prospectors because a lot of guys were not having cards released so early in their careers.Hell...in football a lot of times the guy may have even been playing for a year or more before he had a card made at all.There were set builders and player collectors but never even close to the level there is now.Now if you build sets you have a zillion to choose from.Now if you collect a player(I collect Bagwell) you have literally thousands and thousands to choose from(Bagwell alone has well over 6,000 and he stopped playing 3 years ago).In the case of guys like Griffey and Jeter and Ripken...the list is even longer.Team collectors have always been around but now days half your collection might be just one players cards(due to some of them having so many...I could have a collection of over 10,000 astros cards with just Bagwell and Berkman and Biggio alone) and some of them might be prospects that never even see a major league diamond.That is something you didn't have to worry too much about back in the day.Especially with few minor league cards made and fewer sets to be had.I mean...come on...where was the ability to lose focus when all you had to worry about was completing your team set from topps or fleer every year?

Today's hobby is too niche oriented.Throw in scarcity and perceived scarcity and actual scarcity(three very different things) and you have a horrible market for an "iconic" card to come from.Everything is supposedly rare now.People are worried about the next big thing now.There is no mindset that you can set things aside and tuck them away and they will mature financially as they antiquate.Its just not the mindset these days.Don't believe me...lets see a show of hands of all of you who are holding onto Bryce Harper cards for the next 20 years hoping they will gravitate upwards?Who's sitting on a stash of Alex Rodriguez cards for the next 10 years(although that could be a good idea once he starts to break records...steroids or no the publicity gets them every time.)?Not hardly anyone.Today's collecting world is so wham bam thank you ma'am its almost like going to a brothel.Before you can get your skivvies up the worker bee is taking the next "client" upstairs.Cards hit their peak and then take a nosedive and become last years fad.An afterthought.And while there were a zillion cards produced back then...the amount of variety now has really softened the ability to be iconic now.

 

[sportscardtheory]

To be an "iconic" card, said card does not have to be the player's best RC. I would say the 2001 Upper Deck Albert Pujols RC is far more "iconic" than his Bowman Chrome Auto RC because it is massively bought/sold/traded and although it is not rare, still sells for consistently high prices.

 

[MattinglyAlexander]

To be an "iconic" card, said card does not have to be the player's best RC. I would say the 2001 Upper Deck Albert Pujols RC is far more "iconic" than his Bowman Chrome Auto RC because it is massively bought/sold/traded and although it is not rare, still sells for consistently high prices.

The whole concept that it has to be something everyone can have is silly to me. I mean come on, many of the cards we mentioned, not EVERYONE has or can have... but we ALL sure as hell WANT them. I want a T206 Wagner.... I want a '52 Topps Mantle....
and I also want a '01 BC Pujols. I have the Griffey.

I think Iconic...at least in this case... covers both what we can have...AND what we desire. If I had 500 '01 UD Pujols...I'd give everyone of them for a single BC....

This is a different time. Suppose that Griffey was only numbered to 500? Would it change it's iconic staus?

 

[sportscardtheory]

To be an "iconic" card, said card does not have to be the player's best RC. I would say the 2001 Upper Deck Albert Pujols RC is far more "iconic" than his Bowman Chrome Auto RC because it is massively bought/sold/traded and although it is not rare, still sells for consistently high prices.

The whole concept that it has to be something everyone can have is silly to me. I mean come on, many of the cards we mentioned, not EVERYONE has or can have... but we ALL sure as hell WANT them. I want a T206 Wagner.... I want a '52 Topps Mantle....
and I also want a '01 BC Pujols. I have the Griffey.

I think Iconic...at least in this case... covers both what we can have...AND what we desire. If I had 500 '01 UD Pujols...I'd give everyone of them for a single BC....

This is a different time. Suppose that Griffey was only numbered to 500? Would it change it's iconic staus?

So you would pay over $25,000 for a Chrome Pujols auto RC? I know what you mean though. The Honus Wagner is considered iconic, and there is supposedly less than 50 in existence... far less than the 500 or so Pujols. I think most people are arguing against Pujols being an iconic player. Maybe in 10 years he will be.

 

[MattinglyAlexander]

^^^ Unless someone offered me $25,000 in one shot for the UD Pujols'.

 

[sportscardtheory]

^^^ Unless someone offered me $25,000 in one shot for the UD Pujols'.

You said you would trade 500 2001 UDs for 1 Chrome auto. That would equal out to around $25,000 seeing that the UD regularly pulls around $50. I know you were just making a point, I'm just busting your chops.

 

[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

 

[nyyankeesfan.13722]

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.

 

[MattinglyAlexander]

^^^ Unless someone offered me $25,000 in one shot for the UD Pujols'.

You said you would trade 500 2001 UDs for 1 Chrome auto. That would equal out to around $25,000 seeing that the UD regularly pulls around $50. I know you were just making a point, I'm just busting your chops.

Oh I know.
..but if I had 500 of the '01 UD's... I think the only way to get $25,000 out of them would be just how I said or maybe 10 a year were sold. If there were 500 copies on ebay at the same time, I highly doubt we'd be looking at anywhere near $25,000 at the end of all auctions. Stil a nice chunk of change though.

by the way, I don't have 1 of the '01 UD's....and I need 3 of the '01 Bowman to complete sets..plus a '01 Bowman Heritage for a set.... :|

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

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.