Since 2001 has there been an 'iconic' card...?

[elmalo]

I think that there are a number of reasons we do not have any recent iconic cards. As mentioned, the proliferation of parallels does not help. I also think though, that it takes an iconic player to have an iconic card, and that takes some time.

Some cards that have iconic potential:

2004 Bowman Chrome AFLAC Andrew McCutchen Auto
2004 Bowman Chrome AFLAC Justin Upton Auto
2003 Bowman Heritage Robinson Cano Auto (less likely than the first two)

More recent cards of players like Harper, Strasburg, Trout, Hosmer etc. also have a chance.

I would think that Cano, being the best player of the 3, would have a better shot.

 

[rehmus]

I don't think it's the best rookie card of a great player (Cano, etc). Iconic implies more than that. The Gregg Jeffries RC is iconic while the Tom Glavine and Roberto Alomar RCs from the SAME SET are not.

We need to define iconic as fame relative to era with moderate attainability thrown in. The Strasburg auto (not super) is iconic regardless of whether he ever pitches another inning.

I think it gets way fuzzier when you start thinking about the pre-1960 cards like the Wagner t206 and the 52 Mantle which seem way tougher than the 2001 Pujols.

 

[matfanofold]

When I started this thread, I knew there would be some decent discussion as to what eactly a "iconic" card is, what that means to each individual, and what role they play in (and out) of the hobby. To this end you did not disapoint! Truth is, I suppose there is no singular answer as to what makes a card "iconic", not in nature or individual perception. As I look over the list compiled by Mike Payne, and shared by Gonzaleznut, I see a scattered few of what I would consider iconic cards surrounded by what I consider 'hobby staple' cards. I guess I have a specific box for what I consider Iconic cards as well so I felt that I would share this...

Although the term 'iconic' indeed has a definitive definition, I think the way it is used specificly towards, and for, our hobby has a greater genralization. For me, an iconic card is a card that defines the hobby or era of collecting. A card that everyone in the hobby will know and thoes outside of the hobby can relate to as well. It's a card that for all intent and purpose can be used as the face of the hobby for any given generation(s) and is independant of value. To me an iconic card is a microcosim of the hobby, a card that evoked memories and it's intrinsic value as measured with importance will/can/has stood the test of time.

When I think Iconic, I think 1952 Topps Mantle, 1986 Fleer Jordan RC, 1989 Griffey Jr RC and the likes. What I do not think of are card(s) that simply have just been 'hot' or 'hyped' for a period of time, nor do I think value in and of itself makes a card iconic. In the end I think we may all have our own definition of what iconic means and how it presents itself in our hobby, but at the end of the day there will only be a select few that just about everyone will agree upon and they are the cards that I truely see as iconic...

 

[elmalo]

I would throw the 54 Banks, 55 Clemente, 68 Ryan, and 85 Team USA McGwires in there as well.