Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1206438)

Here are a few (in my opinion)

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1206457)

...or is it this one? :confused:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1206685)

I agree that those were unforgettable moments, but not necessarily iconic photographs.

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas (Post 1185783)

...another factor to consider is the notoriety of the image itself. One of the reasons that everyone, even those who are not sports enthusiasts, will recognize Conlon's photo of Cobb sliding, or Fein's photo of Babe Ruth bowing out, is that they were recognized as being top-tier images from the start and have been used and reused and reprinted and seen over and over and over, so that the original works that those countless iterations were derived from have been elevated to iconic status. They are not just images OF icons, but rather the images themselves are iconic. That kind of notoriety takes time and exposure to imprint on the general consciousness. So while I think it would certainly be possible to find a new photo that SHOULD rival the old icons in terms of the "four C's" and notoriety of the photographer, I think any newcomer would have difficulty in challenging an original iconic photo in terms of price realized at auction.

That doesn't mean that they would be "judged harshly" or go unappreciated. I just don't think it would be possible for a new image to supplant one of the "old guard" in the public consciousness so quickly, if at all. As Mike's top pick illustrates though, you don't have to have the "best"/most-well-known photo to have a darn nice one that will turn the head of anyone who encounters it and/or bring a handsome sum on the auction block.

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas (Post 1185900)

I guess one's perception of an image as "iconic" could be subjective depending on one's level of exposure to the image, which could vary geographically, culturally, or even within certain circles of interest, depending on the individual. To me, "iconic" is equivalent to "most recognized." Based on that, a photograph would become "more iconic" the farther its general recognition reaches. (I'm thinking along the lines of baseball card collectors vs. sports enthusiasts vs. general population of the U.S. vs. worldwide recognition). I don't think that "most iconic" necessarily equates to "best" though, and I'm not sure the two should really be compared.

Another way of looking at it would be that while a photograph's visual quality (the "4 C's") is fixed from the moment the print is produced, its "iconic" status is not. Where one image went from the obscurity (literally) of a darkroom to achieve worldwide recognition over the years, an equivalent or better photograph may have been used once (or not at all), and languished unviewed in some archive without gaining comparable status. A lack of notoriety shouldn't lessen a photo's "worth" either in terms of appreciation or monetary value, but we often can't help but heap greater praise on the "iconic" photo simply because it is easily-recognized.

And I would strongly agree though that the descriptor of "iconic" is overused in auctions, along with all the other flattering terms and puffery that is all designed to get the reader to loosen their grip on their wallet and bid with fervor. It's all part of the auction (and advertising) game, and I'm sure there are examples of images that have become "iconic" simply because they were described that way over and over.

Originally Posted by baseball tourist (Post 1206690)

I see the point that you are making, and would argue that the images of the Babe seated, Ryan wailing on Ventura and a young Splinter don't qualify either. The first is a boring image dwarfed by countless other Ruth images, the Ryan is akin to the Jordan image I posted and the Ted W. shot while excellent doesn't tell the viewer anything about Ted's greatness as a hitter.

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1206772)

"Ryan vs Ventura" was meant as a joke. Contrasted to all the others I posted along with it, I didn't think I would have to telegraph that dry little joke. There was also the 'color vs black and white' angle that I thought would help. Plus, many remember similar images from other angles, or the actual event. I chose that one because it is the photo he signs most often. From now on, I'll post an asterisk next to dry jokes so that I don't have to make everyone cringe with future long explanations. (By the way - I love explaining dry jokes, as I think it adds to the absurdity of the original joke).

Babe seated is boring and dwarfed by others? :eek:

Also, I think the Olympics photo you posted is probably actually iconic, even outside of our hobby.

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1206777)

I think being able to picture the photo in you head without looking at it, is also part of 'iconic'. For instance, when I think back about the 'Ali vs Liston' photos, the one that comes to mind at the moment, is the one with his arm across his chest, so obviously, that's the 'iconic' one.

With that quality of 'iconic' in mind, I can also think of Bob Beamon's long-jump and that image of Brandy Chastain on her knees with that little black bra. But I digress.

How about this one?

http://prafulla.net/wp-content/share...38477359-7.jpg

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1206777)

I think being able to picture the photo in you head without looking at it, is also part of 'iconic'.

Originally Posted by MooseDog (Post 1206914)

This one…iconic???

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1207063)

That one might be familiar to non-baseball people also?

I think there could be two lists: iconic to general public, iconic to baseball fans.

...and other sports-specific iconic photos, such as the horse-racing ones shown previously. Those wouldn't be iconic to me, but I don't pay attention to much involving horses.