Your Opinion- Does an Auto Cover Enhance or Decrease the Value of a Publication?
 

The autographed cover of the first edition of Sports Illustrated in the current Birmingham Auction (https://birminghamauctioneersbid.com...ce?itemid=1859) got me thinking. Do you think that because Eddie Matthews autographed the cover it is more valuable or less valuable? I personally think that the value is not increased and maybe even slightly decreased. Thoughts?


Jeff


*Disclaimer...I do work sometimes with Scott from Birmingham Auctions.

It'll always depend on the person. The question comes up a lot re: vintage photos and whether the subject should sign them. Some people are photo guys and not auto guys; same goes for magazines and whether they'd want them autographed or not.

Agree...

The answer depends upon a few things...

A. Who signed it, and how rare/valuable is the signature?
B. What is the nature of the item, and value of the item prior to its being signed?
C. Does the signature enhance or detract from the aesthetics and overall appearance of the item?

In your case, I think it could go either way. Matthews is not a rare signature, so there is no clear-cut answer. It just depends upon whether the purchaser prefers it autographed or not. Since Matthews is deceased, I would personally prefer the autographed version. He has a nice signature, and is featured on the cover.

But a Magazine/Periodical "purist" might not touch the autographed version. So I think your example can easily go either way.

I don't know what the consensus of collectors of that particular item would be, but I don't really like the look (placement, color, etc.) of that auto.

my 2 cents
 

I would say it is worth more to a smaller collecting base.

The Magazine in question:

https://birminghamauctioneersbid.com...tem_1859_1.jpg

I think you've got to look at a couple of things:

• The value of the pub without an auto
• The value of the auto (say on an 8x10)
• The timing of the date of publication and how long an athlete had to sign it

I collect autographed Sports Illustrated magazines and in virtually all cases, an authentic autograph will increase the value of the magazine.

In this case, the value of the unautographed magazine is probably an order of magnitude higher than an Eddie Matthews autograph. I would guess there will be a small premium, but not much.

One of the reasons that I like the signed magazines is because they are only published for a short time, versus an 8x10 glossy or some other photo that could have been produced without limit over many, many years. So while it does not date the auto, it does date the medium.

If this were for a signed Mickey Mantle SI from 1956, the autographed copy would bring a strong premium over an unsigned copy. Note, not mine - from Mears 2013 auction

Personally, I would much rather have the magazine signed.

I very much appreciate having old fountain or ballpoint autographs on just about anything that's made out of paper or cardboard, but I don't like pencil autographs, and I like Sharpie autographs even less. I think the values of signed cards and publications, at least to some degree, reflect this.

All depends on aesthetics, the item and player(s) for me. Both of these cards are nice in their own right but the sigs and especially where they are placed, takes them to a new level for me...

Just to complete the thought on the specific item in question I had an autographed and an unautographed Sports Illustrated Vol 1 Issue 1 in my auction. Without went for $70, with went for $100. The moral of the story? You should've bid in my auction!!! :)