Now that's a very interesting question.
Can a set be "iconic" without a major star rookie? Or just a very popular star on his most accessible card?
T206 - Wagner
33 Goudey - the Ruths and Gehrig.
52 Topps - Mantle (not rookie of course, but a fairly tough card and an early one for him.
Or, like those as well, is it a set that best represents the era it was issued in?
The way things developed would make that challenging.
89 Upper Deck - Griffey of course, but looking at it from the details, it's more of a 90's set than 80's sort of transitional, as it was eclipsed by the technical stuff that began with the 93 finest Refractors. Those to me are sort of THE cards of the 90's
84 Donruss represents the 80's a bit better, but while it was BIG when it came out, it hasn't aged well. Not that any of the mid-late 80's card sets have. 1980 Topps has held up pretty well, but its closer to being a 70's set just like the UD is more like a 90's set.
2011 Topps? With Trout? Design and production wise, it's a solid set for the time, and it's got Trout.
Lots of ways to approach it, all of them both right and wrong all at once.
|