Getting Game-used items signed

[Runscott]

I was considering getting my 2010 Cano batting helmet signed, but the cost is $129 and I'm not sure other collectors would see it as a 'positive' if I ever sold it. From a personal collection standpoint I'm 50/50, which is why I'm posing the question.

Similarly, I have a game-used Zunino bat that he hit his final HR of 2014 with. With him sporting a .170 batting average I don't think it has much collector value at the moment. I could have gotten it signed for free, but passed because of signing lines. My gut feel is that in both cases it's a personal preference thing, and that collectors are probably split. Thoughts?

[murphusa]

I get every game used item signed if I can with the exception of a jersey

[Scott Garner]

Hi Scott,
This is definitely a collector preference thing.
I have gone both ways, depending on the item.

Personally, if I believe that getting a game used item would enhance the "cool factor" for my own collection, I do it.
Other game used collectors are purists and would prefer that an item not be altered from it's original game used state.

One other point that I would make is although I sometimes add an autograph to an item, I would not add a modern signature to a vintage piece, especially if the players' signature has changed significantly. My bias is period piece = period signature. I know other collectors that feel the same way, BTW.

As you did with your Zunino example, I would consider the additional cost of getting an item signed and what potential benefit would be if you ever resell it. As much as we don't want to think about it, we will most likely eventually sell a collectible, so having an exit strategy is likely a good idea. If you plan on taking an item to the grave with you, do what makes you happy as a collector.

[bigfanNY]

I find items like Bats display nicer with an autograph. If I have a game used ball that I associate with a player I try to get that signed as well. I guess for the most part I prefer my game used Item with a signature. I am torn with vintage items but even there If possible I seek out a signiture.
Recently I bought a Sosa Bat with an auto for a 500/600 HR display and sought an auto version out because I knew that getting a non auto version signed would be difficult. Another example is Griffey Jr. I would lean hard toward a signed item vs not.
On the other hand I do try and get my items signed in person if possible I am not a fan of sending in high value items to "signings". I thought long and hard about sending a 500 HR ball to the national because I could have added 4 sig's But decided I would piece it together in person like the first 12 on the ball. So I like em signed and if possible in person. JMHO

PS: I too had high hopes for Mike Zunio but Seattle clearly bought him along way too fast

J

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I was considering getting my 2010 Cano batting helmet signed, but the cost is $129 and I'm not sure other collectors would see it as a 'positive' if I ever sold it. From a personal collection standpoint I'm 50/50, which is why I'm posing the question.

Similarly, I have a game-used Zunino bat that he hit his final HR of 2014 with. With him sporting a .170 batting average I don't think it has much collector value at the moment. I could have gotten it signed for free, but passed because of signing lines. My gut feel is that in both cases it's a personal preference thing, and that collectors are probably split. Thoughts?

Personally, I would get all GU gear signed /dated. I like the way it displays, resells, and ties everything together.

But mainly it is because my memory has been deteriorating lately.

[packs]

I think signed items are great. I know that the game used aspect of the items means they're already connected to the player. But for me, the signature really spruces things up.

If you don't want to pay for Cano, I was at spring training last year in Arizona and he was a signing machine. Might be worth the trip. Mariners camp was great. Very accommodating for fans. Plus every camp is about a half hour from each other in AZ, so you could make some more stops while you're there.

[Runscott]

Thanks guys.

I might pay the $129 for the helmet - my bats are already signed.

I would prefer his signature on the baseballs, but not at $100 a pop. Packs - thanks for the Spring Training idea. I was thinking of heading to AZ next spring, so this is more incentive.

Regarding Zunino, he's very special as a defensive catcher, but his bat speaks for itself. He does seem to be sort of a clutch hitter, which might be why McLendon's overlooking the average a little.

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

One other point that I would make is although I sometimes add an autograph to an item, I would not add a modern signature to a vintage piece, especially if the players' signature has changed significantly. My bias is period piece = period signature. I know other collectors that feel the same way, BTW.)

Agreed on this point;e.g-keeping with your Ryan example theme, I can't imagine a 2015 Ryan sharpie signature on this item:

[icollectDCsports]

My general preference is to keep game used / worn items unsigned if that's the way I receive them but I understand that some collectors have different views on this question. If you do get items signed, there are a number of variables, such as size, placement, and the addition of writing other than the signature. If an item is signed, I prefer that the signature not be so large or placed in a manner to detract from the item, or jazzed up with wordy inscriptions. In some of the examples above, I like the way the Ryan jersey has a simple signature down near the tail and tags. The Ryan cap is also nicely done and the date doesn't detract. As for the Cano helmet, you may want it signed on the bill if you want the signature to be prominent -- but another option is for the signature on the side so that you have the auto on it but so that you can still display it forward without the auto in view. Just a few thoughts and enjoy your items whatever you decide to do.

[drcy]

Personal preference, but I know of game used collectors who remove signatures from game used bats.

[icollectDCsports]

Originally Posted by drcy

Personal preference, but I know of game used collectors who remove signatures from game used bats.

Some collectors also remove signatures from helmets and jerseys (yes, it can be done -- at least with modern polyester jerseys).

[perezfan]

I can't stand signed jerseys and caps. They're both just bad mediums for ink of any kind, and signing them often compromises (sometimes ruins) the piece, in my opinion. Especially with flannel jerseys (but don't really like signed knits, either). If a Cap is signed, I always prefer it be under the brim.

Helmets and Bats look great signed (to me) and seem to accept the ink much better. I have no real preference (signed or unsigned) as it really depends on the specific item in question. As you and others have stated, it just comes down to personal preference, which will vary quite a bit from collector to collector.

That said, I wouldn't shell out $129 for Cano, but might try Spring Training or pre-game. To me, it wouldn't enhance the value all that much.

[Runscott]

Thanks for the additional thoughts. I have two signed caps, both under the bill , but I do like some of the ones I have seen; e.g-silver Sharpie Mantle on a Yankee bill looks very nice!