OT: Signed in person valuable cards decrease or increase value?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

A member here (pokerplyr80, hi!) sent me a PM about early signed T206's etc and potential values of some "fantasy" cards would bring, like a signed Wags, Joss etc would bring, and we've had some good chatting about it.

I know there has been debate that getting a valuable card signed, especially pre-war, can be viewed as defacing that card and potentially decreasing the value of the card.

Being a signed card collector I can see this being an issue.

Just wanted to hear some other opinions, especially those that collect unsigned cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pokerplyr80]

I know you've already heard my position, but I am of the opinion that many collectors would put a premium on even the most valuable cards in the hobby.

I mean how cool would it be to own a Babe Ruth autographed rookie card? Or a t206 that Wagner actually signed (assuming someone could have gotten him to sign one).

And I certainly think that other high end but lower profile cards, like a t206 cobb or young would have to add considerable value if signed.

[travrosty]

if it was some of the most high conditioned valuable cards and a very low pop, graded 8, 9 or 10, then maybe not so good to have it signed. otherwise it probably would help.


there is the famous story of halper trading his lajoie goudey high condition card to mastro in return for the same card that was of lesser quality, but signed by lajoie. i think the higher quality card would end up being worth more in the long run.


Another favorite trade happened back in the 1970s at a card show in Dearborn, Michigan. A CBS executive asked Halper and another collector, Bill Mastro, to bring their three most valuable cards. "So I have my cards and Mastro has his," Halper recounts. "Bill looked at my 1933 Goudey Lajoie [Napoleon Lajoie, the Hall of Fame infielder for the Cleveland Indians]. 'Yours is mint and mine is only excellent,' Mastro said, commenting on the grading of the cards. But Mastro's card was autographed. Bill says, 'Boy, this is the best Lajoie card ever.' " Halper proposed an even-up swap of the two cards. Mastro balked. Halper said his offer was good only for the next five minutes. The old squeeze play worked and Mastro said, "OK."

[ullmandds]

I think autographed card collecting is definitely a niche aspect of the hobby...and general rules don't necessarily apply.

I think autographed vintage...like pre WWI...is much more valuable than the unautographed counterparts. BUT...when it comes to more modern cards...the condition scarcity will be worth more than the autographed copy in most cases.

[brian1961]

One of the hobby's more famous and vocal pioneers, Lionel Carter, always believed that autographing a card was defacing it. He didn't influence me; I just felt the same way, even as a teenager. Sure, he would send a duplicate to a Chicago Cub back in the 30s to have him sign it, but never, ever a single.

Given the choice between an autographed card and a non-autographed example, I would always take the non-autographed.

Someone approached Mickey Mantle at a show with a 1952 Topps to autograph. I recall reading about it in SCD, as it made hobby news. He asked the person if he knew what that card was, and if he was SURE he wanted him to autograph it.

Honestly, I hate to say it, I don't remember if The Mick was able to talk the guy out of it or not. I just remember somebody wanted Mickey to autograph one of his '52 Topps, and being absolutely appalled at the notion!

That said, I definitely agree that autographed cards are a niche area of the hobby, and has been so for many years. I stay out of their way, and hopefully they will not want what I want, so they'll go and ruin it with the guy's autograph!

An autograph on a ball or a photo, yes. But a card is a photo! True, but not for an autograph; cards are too small. I recall when Chicago collector Dave Miedema was crowing to Mr. Carter about all the autographed baseball cards he owned. To which Mr. Carter tarted replied, "And I supposed they're all autographed right across their face!"

All Dave could meekly say was, "heh?" He was verbally crowned with a haymaker by 'ol Lionel during that phone conversation.

Still, the autographed card collectors comprise a passionate bunch, and they help each other keep their niche going, and keep their prices stable.

---Brian Powell

[egri]

My signature pretty much gives away my position in this debate, but I think part of the answer is how the signature looks. If it's well done in fountain pen or sharpie great, OTOH I have been able to grab some of the more difficult cards for my set cheap because the signatures looked like crap. On a more personal level, I've always liked knowing that the player depicted actually held the card I have, especially if it's someone who passed long before my time that I would've liked to meet.