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
|