When's an autograph an autograph

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>I'm not into collecting autographs so I'm lacking into what constitutes an autograph. For instance, I've got an 1883 team photograph that includes one of the earliest black baseball players, John (Jack) Frye. On the back of the image he has written in pen: "compliments of Jack Frye late of the Lock Haven BBC". This writing is printed rather than written in cursive. Since he has written his own name...is that an autograph? In other words, if Barry Bonds prints his name on a piece of paper...is that an autograph? Does it necessarily need to be a signature in cursive writing? What if a player always prints instead of writing in cursive? What about initials?<br /><br />Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I'd be thrilled to have that item even if he signed with an x. I don't collect autographs either, but I'd be inclined to think that while a cursive signature is preferred (especially if legible), a printed name would be collectible as well, so long as the provenance is beyond challenge, particulalry where few examples survive, as is likely true here.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>I would call these autographs, particularly the printed version. Many players also use initials as signatures. Mark McGwire had a ball park signature which, for the most part, consists of a M and G. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1098143507.JPG"> <br /><br />I think it ultimately comes down to semantics. Some might also want to call these signatures or initials, particularly if they are part of a document. However, as an autograph collector, I would still call them autographs.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>It's fair to call it autographed ... It's his name and he wrote it. What else does anyone need?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I sure don't know the "rules" for what constitutes an autograph, but I vote for Hankron's "its his name and he wrote it".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>but an autograph is a person's name as they sign it personally. To me, that means that if they are printing their name, and that's not how they normally sign, but simply how they write their name when printing, then it is NOT an autograph.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jamie</b><p>it's an inscription and inscriptions (without autos) tend to go for significantly less than signatures.<br /><br />as a point of reference, a joe jackson log book he kept as a liquor store owner failed to sell at auction with a starting bid of less than half most of his signatures go for

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rick</b><p>You might also keep in mind that there is a good chance that this player only printed his name. I have an autograph from Curt Davis (traded to Cardinals for Dizzy Dean) His autograph looks like it was printed by a first grader because he was basically iliterate.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>if 'printing' is the way he signed his name, then it's an autograph.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>The inscription definition probably fits but, in this case, there may not be any other known signatures out there to indicate whether the guy knew how to write other than printing. He writes fairly neatly which would tend to show his literacy but below this writing is some very crude and elementary printing apparently from his brother (whom John Frye apparently gave this to). In pencil it says "William Frye brother living at 635 Boas St. Harrisburg Pa". So, if he was fairly literate, then there was some large disparity in the family.<br /><br /><img src="http://home.kc.rr.com/ramram/1883%20John%20Frye.jpg">