To have memorabilia signed or not
 

This question was raised in another thread, and I am wondering what the "court of public opinion" says: If a vintage item is acquired (in my case, a jersey which was may have been worn by a player who is still living), would it be best to have it signed by that player if he would agree to it, or leave it alone? Likewise, vintage baseballs, caps, etc.?

Personally, I like to keep it vintage...no new sig. I would rather display it with a signed item. Maybe have him sign an index card or something with a note about the jersey(if possible)??

I would not have vintage flannels, baseball cards, or photos signed. Modern uniforms, bats, equipment, and magazines in my opinion are more attractive when signed. However, I am only interested in such items if I am the one who obtains the autograph.

I agree.An index card or a note displayed with the jersey is the way I would go.

Totally agree that your beautiful vintage flannel should not be signed.
As I mentioned in the other thread, you could have him sign a photo of the jersey, or even better, a photo of him holding the jersey.

Greg

I vote no. I don't like signatures on jerseys...and I especially don't like sharpie on vintage items....ruins it IMO.

A signed repro jersey with a bunch of members of a team makes for a nice little display, but a vintage jersey should be unsigned and displayed with a signed item/items. Just my .02

I get it now and I'm officially raising the white flag!!

Don't have any vintage jersey signed! :eek:;)

I hate jerseys that are signed. Especially those with something like George Brett, 3 time batting Champion, World Series Champion, 1980 MVP and so on. Seems some of these inscriptions take up the whole jersey. In my opinion the fact that it was used by the person is enough for me. I don't need a signature too. On the other hand if you have a 1909 Detroit jersey signed by Ty Cobb that would be pretty cool.

Reading the gameuseduniverse board, many collectors like to have their game used items sighed, and a number are against it. Someone would remove signatures if they could. So it's split opinion there.

David I think you are right over there. I wonder what the ratio would be if we just included the vintage collectors only?

I think the correct answer is whatever makes you happy. There is validity to both sides of the debate.

In my mind each item should be judged individually.
Would a 1938 Hank Greenberg jersey signed in 1980 in sharpie really be worth less than an unsigned one? In reality, it would still be a game worn jersey. Perhaps a hardcore uniform collector might prefer it unsigned, but it's hard for me to really believe that an autograph would prevent someone from bidding as much as they would've otherwise.

I could see where if two same/similar uniforms came up for sale at the same time, one auto'ed and one not, it could play out like this. The bidders interested in it because of the autograph would like bid on just the signed one. The jersey specific collectors would likely bid higher or more aggressively on the unsigned one, but likely still bid on the signed one. Especially if the blank one was sold first and they didn't win it.

I think another thing to consider is the strength of the connection to the player. Having a generic Chicks jersey signed by a random former Chicks player, IMHO, wouldn't be worthwhile. If you have very strong evidence that it was his jersey, I think it could be beneficial.

Another option would be to buy a fountain pen and have him sign it with that to give it a more vintage feel.

So again, I say do what makes you happy.

Best,
Mark

I agree with those who say you shouldn't get the item signed. In my mind it destroys the "integrity" of the original piece.

I once caught a home run ball at a game, and people (non-collectors) often tell me I should get it signed by the player who hit it. I wouldn't do that because the ball wasn't signed when it was used in the game, and it wasn't signed when it was hit over the wall, and it wasn't signed when it bounced off the seats behind me and flew into my hand.

+1

I collect odds and ends like scorecards and other vintage ephemera and I can't tell you how many pieces I really wanted were in my opinion ruined by someone getting a player to sign it in sharpie pen. When that happens I pass on buying it. I have many period signed programs and such, but when a modern collector gets a vintage item signed in that darn blue sharpie I just want to scream!

Vintage Baseballs
 

Thanks for everyone's suggestions, but what about vintage baseballs? For example, a few years ago I purchased a dozen Southern Association (defunct since 1961) baseballs, and I have had several former players autograph one. Harmon Killebrew even signed one with "Chattanooga Lookouts, 1957 - 1958". It is one of my treasures!

Definitely go with whatever makes you happiest. I see nothing wrong with players signing vintage balls (as long as they use ballpoint pen vs. sharpie). And try to save the same pen for all sigs that will appear on the ball. Uniformity of ink looks best, IMO.

With regard to uniforms, signatures done on flannel look horrible in my opinion. They bleed and rarely take well to the material. Plus, they corrupt the item and usually clash with the vintage look and feel. I don't mind signatures on knits nearly as much, but still believe in keeping game-used clothing unsigned. Just my .02....

I would go with having a signed note from the player as well.

I agree that signatures don't look good on vintage jerseys - and that signatures really have nothing to do with a game worn jersey. If the signature is somewhat contemporaneous with the wearing of the jersey, then I guess maybe it's not an awful idea, especially if the player wants to note that he wore the jersey during a special game 'my 50th home run jersey' or such, but unless contemporaneous AND with a special game notation, I wouldn't add a signature.

Also, signing a piece of paper, instead of the actual jersey, allows for a correctable error.