<< <i>How does one get to be a representative of the hobby as a whole, or even in part ? >>
Yes how? on the PSA website they have 3 on the mt rushmore: 1916 M101 ruth, 52 mantle and t206 wagner. They have a vote for the last spot between 55 clemente, 54 aaron, 48 jackie robinson, and cracker jack shoeless. I say 55 clemente, a PSA 9 just sold for $310k. No offense but I know many people would laugh at seeing griffey on the mt rushmore. >>
I would on the Griffey. The CJ Shoeless would look mighty fine on there, though.
No doubt with the 52 mantle and t206 Wagner. That leaves two spots that seem to be varying by members. Some great cards mentioned......some I am not totally familiar with, although I know they are tough cards. I am throwing in 93 sp jeter and 52 topps Eddie Mathews
<< <i>No doubt with the 52 mantle and t206 Wagner. That leaves two spots that seem to be varying by members. Some great cards mentioned......some I am not totally familiar with, although I know they are tough cards. I am throwing in 93 sp jeter and 52 topps Eddie Mathews >>
If you are going to throw in the Jeter, a bigger modern iconic card than that is the 2001 Bowman Chrome Albert Pujols RC auto. I guess there could be a modern and vintage Mount Rushmore. If that's the case, the Griffey, Jeter, and Pujols are all more than deserving on the modern Mount Rushmore.
It cracks me up how some people are unclear on the concept of the Mt. Rushmore of BASEBALL cards. If you want other sportscards on a Mt. Rushmore, make another one.
This is not a knock on the Sporting News Ruth but I am surprised the Goudey Ruths didn't garner more votes. I understand that the SN Ruth is more rare and more valuable but I would venture a guess that if you took Ruth's name off of the front of that card that it is possible 75% of collectors in the hobby would not know who the card was even picturing. If they could name the player I would guess that 90% of the hobby wouldn't be able to name the card itself. I would bet that a far greater percentage would be able to look at a Goudey Ruth and name the manufacturer and certainly the player. As for the 89 UD Griffey, I think a strong argument can be made for its inclusion. It really was a seminal card in the hobby as it ushered in the modern look of cards and represents, for better or worse, what many consider the boom period of the hobby. If it's not included the most modern card on the Mt. Rushmore was made 60+ years ago. This basically ignores an entire generation of collectors.
As for the 89 UD Griffey, I think a strong argument can be made for its inclusion. It really was a seminal card in the hobby as it ushered in the modern look of cards and represents, for better or worse, what many consider the boom period of the hobby. If it's not included the most modern card on the Mt. Rushmore was made 60+ years ago. This basically ignores an entire generation of collectors.
<< <i>As for the 89 UD Griffey, I think a strong argument can be made for its inclusion. It really was a seminal card in the hobby as it ushered in the modern look of cards and represents, for better or worse, what many consider the boom period of the hobby. If it's not included the most modern card on the Mt. Rushmore was made 60+ years ago. This basically ignores an entire generation of collectors.
+1 ^^ This >>
Indeed. That is why I was thinking we should probably have a vintage and modern Mount Rushmore.
Steve, You mentioned 90 percent wouldn't know the Ruth sporting news card. I disagree, the majority of collectors know this card and the player on it even if you took away the name. It's the 3rd ranked sports card in Joe Orlando's top 20 sportscards list. Seriously Griffey on mt Rushmore is a joke. It's not even the most significant modern card.
<< <i>Steve, You mentioned 90 percent wouldn't know the Ruth sporting news card. I disagree, the majority of collectors know this card and the player on it even if you took away the name. It's the 3rd ranked sports card in Joe Orlando's top 20 sportscards list. Seriously Griffey on mt Rushmore is a joke. It's not even the most significant modern card. >>
I agree with you on the Ruth. That's a monster.
I don't think the Griffey is a joke if you're talking about modern baseball cards. I'm not sure if you were around when 1989 Upper Deck hit, but the Griffey and design innovation from UD were a big, big deal to many of us at the time. The Griffey is an iconic modern card, of an all time great.
<< <i>Steve, You mentioned 90 percent wouldn't know the Ruth sporting news card. I disagree, the majority of collectors know this card and the player on it even if you took away the name. It's the 3rd ranked sports card in Joe Orlando's top 20 sportscards list. Seriously Griffey on mt Rushmore is a joke. It's not even the most significant modern card. >>
I respectfully disagree on the SN Ruth. Like I mentioned in my post I am not knocking it as I understand its significance. My opinion is that this message board skews heavily towards baseball and vintage. Most of us know who Joe Orlando is, but again if you polled the average person at your local card show I don't think more than 1/4 would know whether Joe Orlando was working at PSA or the backup point guard for the 76ers D-League team. I've never read his sports card book and my collection is almost entirely PSA graded cards. I doubt the average member at Blowout has Joe O's book on his coffee table and I also don't think he could correctly name the year, manufacturer and player depicted based on just the picture of the card.
Again, perhaps I underestimate the average collector's knowledge. I know for me, when I was a teenager collecting in the 90's, I could name every card year and brand (e.g. 1988 Fleer, 1972 Topps, 1948 Leaf, 1933 Goudey, 1909 T-206) going back a long way just from looking at the card design. I could look at a Goudey Ruth and positively identify it without a doubt. I would have had no clue what I was looking at if you showed me a SN Ruth. As recently as 12 months ago, I probably couldn't have identified that card. I believe there are a lot of modern collectors and even post war vintage collectors for which this card just isn't on their radar. This doesn't mean it's not a great card or not significant, it just means the collector base for it is limited at best. And while cards like the Wagner and the 52 Mantle are just as financially unattainable for most collectors they are just more popular within the mainstream audience. I feel like if a card is on the Mt. Rushmore it should be instantly identifiable for the majority of collectors.
I think Griffey might be the GW of the modern Rushmore, but has no place in this project.
I think back to the 80s to get my perspective as an average collector. Like Steve said, I could name most any post war card by sight...at least for baseball. For prewar it was largely confined to Goudey, Play Ball, Cracker Jack, and the T-206s. That's a pretty average baseline.
When I look through those eyes I think the 4 most recognizable would be the Wagner, the 52 Mantle, Goudey Ruth, and the long time HR king Aaron.
I dig the SN Ruth, but was not familiar with it until I got deeper in the hobby.
All that said, all are worthy, and no combo will get 100% agreement.
It'll be interesting as this project moves to other sports.
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
I believe Griffey could be on a modern mt Rushmore. But we are talking mt Rushmore of all cards here so I agree with you vintagefun that Griffey does not belong on mt Rushmore.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
A post-war Mt. Rushmore thread was brought up awhile ago on another board. Originally I had the '49 Leaf Satchel Paige on here, but you guys make a good argument for the Griffey Jr. so....
I agree with those who say Griffey does not belong. I think the Rushmore cards should at least be able to hit 5 figures in high grade. I don't know if a 10 Griffey will even hit 1000.
A bit off topic but for my Rushmore I would pick 1 card from each of the 4 major sports.
1986 Fleer Michael Jordan 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle 1979 O-Pee-Chee Wayne Gretzky 1965 Topps Joe Namath
Football is the tough one. I would much rather see a better football player have the spot than Namath but that card seems to be the only one that fits.
<< <i>I agree with those who say Griffey does not belong. I think the Rushmore cards should at least be able to hit 5 figures in high grade. I don't know if a 10 Griffey will even hit 1000. >>
I agree with you. A PSA 10 griffey upper deck rookie goes for $300. There is a BIG difference between a modern Mt. Rushmore which some say griffey should belong to and the Mt. Rushmore of all cards which griffey should not belong to.
<< <i>A bit off topic but for my Rushmore I would pick 1 card from each of the 4 major sports.
1986 Fleer Michael Jordan 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle 1979 O-Pee-Chee Wayne Gretzky 1965 Topps Joe Namath
Football is the tough one. I would much rather see a better football player have the spot than Namath but that card seems to be the only one that fits. >>
Here's mine: Baseball: 1916 M101 Babe Ruth rookie(the greatest baseball player of all time) Hockey: 1979 Opeechee Wayne Gretzky rookie(the greatest hockey player of all time) Basketball: 1986 Fleer Michael Jordan rookie(the greatest basketball player of all time) Football: 1981 Joe Montana rookie(the greatest quarterback of all time)
I think mt Rushmore is more to do with hobby impact rather than just value. The 89 griffey ushered in the premium era as well as picturing an iconic player in a great portrait. This is probably a generational thing, really no right or wrong answers here
the Griffey card also had a bit of a negative aspect on the industry as a whole. It became a business for adults and pretty much priced kids out of the hobby. It also helped usher in mass production(which had been going on since about 1981) as well as expansion of zillions of different types of sets per year. We started seeing 10+ rookie cards for each player soon after.
It was basically an industry killer and took 15+ years to recover.
Obviously you can't blame one card for all of that but it certainly played a part in it.
<< <i>the Griffey card also had a bit of a negative aspect on the industry as a whole. It became a business for adults and pretty much priced kids out of the hobby. It also helped usher in mass production(which had been going on since about 1981) as well as expansion of zillions of different types of sets per year. We started seeing 10+ rookie cards for each player soon after.
It was basically an industry killer and took 15+ years to recover.
Obviously you can't blame one card for all of that but it certainly played a part in it. >>
<< <i>the Griffey card also had a bit of a negative aspect on the industry as a whole. It became a business for adults and pretty much priced kids out of the hobby. It also helped usher in mass production(which had been going on since about 1981) as well as expansion of zillions of different types of sets per year. We started seeing 10+ rookie cards for each player soon after.
It was basically an industry killer and took 15+ years to recover.
Obviously you can't blame one card for all of that but it certainly played a part in it. >>
Lol not sure how the 89 Griffey helped usher in overproduction of 86-88 topps. The Griffey helped lead the way in sets that were premium and more limited, no not sure how you tie it to overproduction. And if your argument against the Griffey is that kids couldn't afford it - well I don't know many kids who were ever able to afford a 52 mantle or Ruth rookie.
The hobby grew into what it is today during the 80s and 90s so I think that we should include at least one card from this era of growth and I would vote either 84d mattingly or 89ud Griffey. A card that collectors today remember collecting and searching for in packs, and can relate to. Ruth and mantle rookies are expensive and iconic but very few on this board would be able to say they bought packs as kids looking for them.
I got my copy of the SMR in the mail yesterday and read the piece Joe Orlando wrote in regards to this topic. The idea is to represent elite players and elite cards. The Ken Griffey Jr. doesn't belong in the discussion if one is attempting to showcase four cards in the spirit of how the question was asked.
The baseball card explosion began to take hold in the mid 80's and while the Wagner and Mantle were leading the charge in price appreciation they did nothing to influence a kid to buy cards. In the same issue there is an article about the 1985 Topps Baseball set. Kids my age were buying $0.35 packs looking for Dwight Gooden's and never gave a moments thought to the cards of yesteryear. Production levels were already at insane levels by 1989 and the fact that the Griffey debuted in Beckett as a $15 card just added to pack sales. It may have changed the hobby in terms of enhanced production value but if you want to use a pack driven card that ushered in the investment component the 1984 Donruss Mattingly or better yet the 1986 Donruss Jose Canseco are better choices. That said while they were good they were not elite players over the history of baseball.
The Babe Ruth card is represented not because of long standing popularity but shear value and the fact that it is Babe Ruth.
I also think a modern card next to vintage cards would look silly so finding some older players that left a major mark on the game would be the best choice in my opinion.
Shoeless Joe Jackson, Ty Cobb, Pete Rose, Hank Aaron, Lou Gerhig, Joe Dimagio and others.
<< <i>I got my copy of the SMR in the mail yesterday and read the piece Joe Orlando wrote in regards to this topic. The idea is to represent elite players and elite cards. The Ken Griffey Jr. doesn't belong in the discussion if one is attempting to showcase four cards in the spirit of how the question was asked.
The baseball card explosion began to take hold in the mid 80's and while the Wagner and Mantle were leading the charge in price appreciation they did nothing to influence a kid to buy cards. In the same issue there is an article about the 1985 Topps Baseball set. Kids my age were buying $0.35 packs looking for Dwight Gooden's and never gave a moments thought to the cards of yesteryear. Production levels were already at insane levels by 1989 and the fact that the Griffey debuted in Beckett as a $15 card just added to pack sales. It may have changed the hobby in terms of enhanced production value but if you want to use a pack driven card that ushered in the investment component the 1984 Donruss Mattingly or better yet the 1986 Donruss Jose Canseco are better choices. That said while they were good they were not elite players over the history of baseball.
The Babe Ruth card is represented not because of long standing popularity but shear value and the fact that it is Babe Ruth.
I also think a modern card next to vintage cards would look silly so finding some older players that left a major mark on the game would be the best choice in my opinion.
Shoeless Joe Jackson, Ty Cobb, Pete Rose, Hank Aaron, Lou Gerhig, Joe Dimagio and others. >>
Definitely these 4 cards . The most valuable card , the most famous card of the game's most iconic player , the greatest card of the golden age , and the most icon card of the modern age.
The Ken Griffey Jr. doesn't belong in the discussion if one is attempting to showcase four cards in the spirit of how the question was asked.
This survey made me look up the details behind why the 4 Presidents were individually chosen in the first place. There really was not a single defining standard that helped choose those 4 over any other President up to that time. What was written was a list of the extraordinary accomplishments these men had that helped shape the country in which we live in today. So, trying to make the very liberal correlation of our country and our hobby, I think an argument could easily be made for the Wagner (card that transcends the hobby itself), a Ruth card (Goudey as it marked the beginning of truly marketing cards to children, with gum) the 52 Mantle (THE card from THE company that essentially became a monopoly).
The 4th spot could be up for grabs with several eligible candidates. However, I believe the Griffey UD deserves strong consideration as it ushered in the new era of super high quality, "very expensive" , cards that spawned an entirely new direction for the hobby. The fact that the kid was 19, it was the #1 card in the set and he was tabbed to be the next great thing and certainly lived up to it, gives this card a great resume.
This is the correct list. It is the right balance between HOF players of importance and iconic cards/sets/players. Save for maybe the '33 Ruth, almost any even casual collector could identify the remaining 3 by name, year and set. The guys hammering away to have 4 pre-war cards included is dubious at best. Those cards are so rare and valuable because they were literally a byproduct of something else. Not the initially intended collectable or a part of some cardboard hobby. It later evolved into that. This list strikes a nice balance between the origins of this hobby and the later boom. No rushmore would be complete in my opinion without the full story.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>How does one get to be a representative of the hobby as a whole, or even in part ?
Yes how?
on the PSA website they have 3 on the mt rushmore: 1916 M101 ruth, 52 mantle and t206 wagner.
They have a vote for the last spot between 55 clemente, 54 aaron, 48 jackie robinson, and cracker jack shoeless.
I say 55 clemente, a PSA 9 just sold for $310k.
No offense but I know many people would laugh at seeing griffey on the mt rushmore. >>
I would on the Griffey. The CJ Shoeless would look mighty fine on there, though.
<< <i>No doubt with the 52 mantle and t206 Wagner. That leaves two spots that seem to be varying by members. Some great cards mentioned......some I am not totally familiar with, although I know they are tough cards. I am throwing in 93 sp jeter and 52 topps Eddie Mathews >>
If you are going to throw in the Jeter, a bigger modern iconic card than that is the 2001 Bowman Chrome Albert Pujols RC auto. I guess there could be a modern and vintage Mount Rushmore. If that's the case, the Griffey, Jeter, and Pujols are all more than deserving on the modern Mount Rushmore.
Sporting News Babe Ruth
1952 Topps Mickey Mantle
1934 Goudey Lou Gehrig
+1 ^^ This
<< <i>As for the 89 UD Griffey, I think a strong argument can be made for its inclusion. It really was a seminal card in the hobby as it ushered in the modern look of cards and represents, for better or worse, what many consider the boom period of the hobby. If it's not included the most modern card on the Mt. Rushmore was made 60+ years ago. This basically ignores an entire generation of collectors.
+1 ^^ This >>
Indeed. That is why I was thinking we should probably have a vintage and modern Mount Rushmore.
You mentioned 90 percent wouldn't know the Ruth sporting news card. I disagree, the majority of collectors know this card and the player on it even if you took away the name. It's the 3rd ranked sports card in Joe Orlando's top 20 sportscards list.
Seriously Griffey on mt Rushmore is a joke. It's not even the most significant modern card.
Saw that someone else thinks the Ripken is a candidate. Seriously though the 1989 Griffey is a no-brainer.
<< <i>Steve,
You mentioned 90 percent wouldn't know the Ruth sporting news card. I disagree, the majority of collectors know this card and the player on it even if you took away the name. It's the 3rd ranked sports card in Joe Orlando's top 20 sportscards list.
Seriously Griffey on mt Rushmore is a joke. It's not even the most significant modern card. >>
I agree with you on the Ruth. That's a monster.
I don't think the Griffey is a joke if you're talking about modern baseball cards. I'm not sure if you were around when 1989 Upper Deck hit, but the Griffey and design innovation from UD were a big, big deal to many of us at the time. The Griffey is an iconic modern card, of an all time great.
<< <i>Steve,
You mentioned 90 percent wouldn't know the Ruth sporting news card. I disagree, the majority of collectors know this card and the player on it even if you took away the name. It's the 3rd ranked sports card in Joe Orlando's top 20 sportscards list.
Seriously Griffey on mt Rushmore is a joke. It's not even the most significant modern card. >>
I respectfully disagree on the SN Ruth. Like I mentioned in my post I am not knocking it as I understand its significance. My opinion is that this message board skews heavily towards baseball and vintage. Most of us know who Joe Orlando is, but again if you polled the average person at your local card show I don't think more than 1/4 would know whether Joe Orlando was working at PSA or the backup point guard for the 76ers D-League team. I've never read his sports card book and my collection is almost entirely PSA graded cards. I doubt the average member at Blowout has Joe O's book on his coffee table and I also don't think he could correctly name the year, manufacturer and player depicted based on just the picture of the card.
Again, perhaps I underestimate the average collector's knowledge. I know for me, when I was a teenager collecting in the 90's, I could name every card year and brand (e.g. 1988 Fleer, 1972 Topps, 1948 Leaf, 1933 Goudey, 1909 T-206) going back a long way just from looking at the card design. I could look at a Goudey Ruth and positively identify it without a doubt. I would have had no clue what I was looking at if you showed me a SN Ruth. As recently as 12 months ago, I probably couldn't have identified that card. I believe there are a lot of modern collectors and even post war vintage collectors for which this card just isn't on their radar. This doesn't mean it's not a great card or not significant, it just means the collector base for it is limited at best. And while cards like the Wagner and the 52 Mantle are just as financially unattainable for most collectors they are just more popular within the mainstream audience. I feel like if a card is on the Mt. Rushmore it should be instantly identifiable for the majority of collectors.
I think back to the 80s to get my perspective as an average collector. Like Steve said, I could name most any post war card by sight...at least for baseball. For prewar it was largely confined to Goudey, Play Ball, Cracker Jack, and the T-206s. That's a pretty average baseline.
When I look through those eyes I think the 4 most recognizable would be the Wagner, the 52 Mantle, Goudey Ruth, and the long time HR king Aaron.
I dig the SN Ruth, but was not familiar with it until I got deeper in the hobby.
All that said, all are worthy, and no combo will get 100% agreement.
It'll be interesting as this project moves to other sports.
But we are talking mt Rushmore of all cards here so I agree with you vintagefun that Griffey does not belong on mt Rushmore.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
1986 Fleer Michael Jordan
1952 Topps Mickey Mantle
1979 O-Pee-Chee Wayne Gretzky
1965 Topps Joe Namath
Football is the tough one. I would much rather see a better football player have the spot than Namath but that card seems to be the only one that fits.
<< <i>I agree with those who say Griffey does not belong. I think the Rushmore cards should at least be able to hit 5 figures in high grade. I don't know if a 10 Griffey will even hit 1000. >>
I agree with you. A PSA 10 griffey upper deck rookie goes for $300. There is a BIG difference between a modern Mt. Rushmore which some say griffey should belong to and the Mt. Rushmore of all cards which griffey should not belong to.
<< <i>A bit off topic but for my Rushmore I would pick 1 card from each of the 4 major sports.
1986 Fleer Michael Jordan
1952 Topps Mickey Mantle
1979 O-Pee-Chee Wayne Gretzky
1965 Topps Joe Namath
Football is the tough one. I would much rather see a better football player have the spot than Namath but that card seems to be the only one that fits. >>
Here's mine:
Baseball: 1916 M101 Babe Ruth rookie(the greatest baseball player of all time)
Hockey: 1979 Opeechee Wayne Gretzky rookie(the greatest hockey player of all time)
Basketball: 1986 Fleer Michael Jordan rookie(the greatest basketball player of all time)
Football: 1981 Joe Montana rookie(the greatest quarterback of all time)
Apparently not
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It was basically an industry killer and took 15+ years to recover.
Obviously you can't blame one card for all of that but it certainly played a part in it.
<< <i>the Griffey card also had a bit of a negative aspect on the industry as a whole. It became a business for adults and pretty much priced kids out of the hobby. It also helped usher in mass production(which had been going on since about 1981) as well as expansion of zillions of different types of sets per year. We started seeing 10+ rookie cards for each player soon after.
It was basically an industry killer and took 15+ years to recover.
Obviously you can't blame one card for all of that but it certainly played a part in it. >>
Very well said.
<< <i>the Griffey card also had a bit of a negative aspect on the industry as a whole. It became a business for adults and pretty much priced kids out of the hobby. It also helped usher in mass production(which had been going on since about 1981) as well as expansion of zillions of different types of sets per year. We started seeing 10+ rookie cards for each player soon after.
It was basically an industry killer and took 15+ years to recover.
Obviously you can't blame one card for all of that but it certainly played a part in it. >>
Lol not sure how the 89 Griffey helped usher in overproduction of 86-88 topps. The Griffey helped lead the way in sets that were premium and more limited, no not sure how you tie it to overproduction. And if your argument against the Griffey is that kids couldn't afford it - well I don't know many kids who were ever able to afford a 52 mantle or Ruth rookie.
The hobby grew into what it is today during the 80s and 90s so I think that we should include at least one card from this era of growth and I would vote either 84d mattingly or 89ud Griffey. A card that collectors today remember collecting and searching for in packs, and can relate to. Ruth and mantle rookies are expensive and iconic but very few on this board would be able to say they bought packs as kids looking for them.
The baseball card explosion began to take hold in the mid 80's and while the Wagner and Mantle were leading the charge in price appreciation they did nothing to influence a kid to buy cards. In the same issue there is an article about the 1985 Topps Baseball set. Kids my age were buying $0.35 packs looking for Dwight Gooden's and never gave a moments thought to the cards of yesteryear. Production levels were already at insane levels by 1989 and the fact that the Griffey debuted in Beckett as a $15 card just added to pack sales. It may have changed the hobby in terms of enhanced production value but if you want to use a pack driven card that ushered in the investment component the 1984 Donruss Mattingly or better yet the 1986 Donruss Jose Canseco are better choices. That said while they were good they were not elite players over the history of baseball.
The Babe Ruth card is represented not because of long standing popularity but shear value and the fact that it is Babe Ruth.
I also think a modern card next to vintage cards would look silly so finding some older players that left a major mark on the game would be the best choice in my opinion.
Shoeless Joe Jackson, Ty Cobb, Pete Rose, Hank Aaron, Lou Gerhig, Joe Dimagio and others.
<< <i>I got my copy of the SMR in the mail yesterday and read the piece Joe Orlando wrote in regards to this topic. The idea is to represent elite players and elite cards. The Ken Griffey Jr. doesn't belong in the discussion if one is attempting to showcase four cards in the spirit of how the question was asked.
The baseball card explosion began to take hold in the mid 80's and while the Wagner and Mantle were leading the charge in price appreciation they did nothing to influence a kid to buy cards. In the same issue there is an article about the 1985 Topps Baseball set. Kids my age were buying $0.35 packs looking for Dwight Gooden's and never gave a moments thought to the cards of yesteryear. Production levels were already at insane levels by 1989 and the fact that the Griffey debuted in Beckett as a $15 card just added to pack sales. It may have changed the hobby in terms of enhanced production value but if you want to use a pack driven card that ushered in the investment component the 1984 Donruss Mattingly or better yet the 1986 Donruss Jose Canseco are better choices. That said while they were good they were not elite players over the history of baseball.
The Babe Ruth card is represented not because of long standing popularity but shear value and the fact that it is Babe Ruth.
I also think a modern card next to vintage cards would look silly so finding some older players that left a major mark on the game would be the best choice in my opinion.
Shoeless Joe Jackson, Ty Cobb, Pete Rose, Hank Aaron, Lou Gerhig, Joe Dimagio and others. >>
Very well stated.
T206 Wagner
'33 Ruth
'52 Mantle
'89 UD Griffey
This survey made me look up the details behind why the 4 Presidents were individually chosen in the first place. There really was not a single defining standard that helped choose those 4 over any other President up to that time. What was written was a list of the extraordinary accomplishments these men had that helped shape the country in which we live in today. So, trying to make the very liberal correlation of our country and our hobby, I think an argument could easily be made for the Wagner (card that transcends the hobby itself), a Ruth card (Goudey as it marked the beginning of truly marketing cards to children, with gum) the 52 Mantle (THE card from THE company that essentially became a monopoly).
The 4th spot could be up for grabs with several eligible candidates. However, I believe the Griffey UD deserves strong consideration as it ushered in the new era of super high quality, "very expensive" , cards that spawned an entirely new direction for the hobby. The fact that the kid was 19, it was the #1 card in the set and he was tabbed to be the next great thing and certainly lived up to it, gives this card a great resume.
<< <i>T206 Wagner
'33 Ruth
'52 Mantle
'89 UD Griffey >>
This is the correct list. It is the right balance between HOF players of importance and iconic cards/sets/players. Save for maybe the '33 Ruth, almost any even casual collector could identify the remaining 3 by name, year and set. The guys hammering away to have 4 pre-war cards included is dubious at best. Those cards are so rare and valuable because they were literally a byproduct of something else. Not the initially intended collectable or a part of some cardboard hobby. It later evolved into that. This list strikes a nice balance between the origins of this hobby and the later boom. No rushmore would be complete in my opinion without the full story.