Why are pencil autographs from the pre-1950s era so disrespected by collectors?

[Jerry42]

I collect Dodger autographs (mostly Jackie and Campy). The market clearly values vintage autographs in ink. Yet, pencil autographs, with some exceptions, of course, do not seem to fade, and nothing symbolizes the era more to this old guy than pencil autographs. Why is a higher value given to a penned autograph?

[mr2686]

Actually, I think the main reason is authentication. It's a little harder to determine an authentic pencil autograph just due to the nature of pencil...not impossible, just a little harder. Also, with ink you can narrow down when a certain type of pen (ballpoint, sharpie, etc) could have been used. Not so with pencil.

[HRBAKER]

I also think there is more of a natural sense of "permanence" to an ink autograph rightly or wrongly. I know I would much prefer fountain pen, then pen, then pencil.

[perezfan]

I think some collectors (perhaps falsely) assume that pencil is erasable, so it is not as permanent a medium. I think many view ink as being a more stable and long-term representation. I have never had anything written in ink fade, but have sure read lots of stories about it here...

So perhaps pencil isn't so bad... as long as you keep those erasers far away from your prized autos!

Could it also be that many collectors just think that the ink is more visually pleasing and attractive to look at? Seems like an over-simplification, but it may hold true...

Edited to say that Jeff beat me to the point with his more concise post!

[GoldenAge50s]

I got this Paul Waner auto in mid-'50's--in pencil!

What could be more beautiful?

[David Atkatz]

Here's my pencil beauty:

[HexsHeroes]

.

I personally think it's not so much about disrespect, but about which is more aesthetically appealing. I rarely find that the boldness of a pencil signature is anywhere as strong as that of a blue or black ink signature. How many collectors would tend to gravitate towards a nice, signed, white baseball, versus a similarly signed toned or offwhite ball. How many of our card collecting mates would gravitate towards a card with bold colors or clean borders and surfaces, versus one with lighter tones, or dirtier surfaces. Given a choice, I think most of us would prefer the more attractive choice.

That said, I know of many collectors who pass on all items signed in either red or green fountain pen ink. Too unusual, and not appealing they say.

For me, it comes down to a combination of the scarcity of the autograph, and the price. The scarcer (sp?) the autograph, the more open I am both to the medium signed on, and the instrument used to sign the autograph.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Here's my pencil beauty:

Boy David, that is SWEET ! And you'll never have to worry about it fading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my lone lead signature...

mickeymantlePSA9.jpg

[HRBAKER]

Not my lone pencil one but my favorite I think. David that Gehrig is a thing of beauty.

[T206Collector]

[Jerry42]

As to my love of pencil autographs from the 1940s-early 1950s, I should add that as a kid in those years, I brought a pencil to every game with my lined, small note-pad, and the pencil autograph reminds me of those experiences. And for me, that's what collecting is all about. So, although I have nothing against a Jackie Robinson autograph in pen, I like the pencil, especially because of the price reduction. And no matter what anyone thinks, those pencil autographs last -- better than some of my ink autographs exposed to light on my walls.

I also like the flavor of the times, and don't care about white balls and small wrinkles in cards (although I do keep my eye on value).

[yanks12025]

Here's members of the 1936 yankees including Joe DiMaggio in pencil.

[mr2686]

Vintage pencil autograph of Pie Traynor.

[gashouse34]

I'm starting to like this thread w/all the vintage pencil auto's...I agree with Jerry42 and don't mind the discount in price...plus I think a nice pencil auto can display nicely without the worries of fading

[bronxbomber609]

I like my pencil autograph

[mr2686]

To keep the thread going and to pay homage to the pencil autograph, I have included my vintage Dazzy Vance pencil autograph.

[Oldtix]

My uncle got these from New York Giants players at the 1937 World Series.

Gus Mancuso - Eddie Madjeski - Hank Lieber - Carl Hubbell - Al Schacht (the baseball clown) - Jimmy Ripple - Harry Danning - Johnny McCarthy - Sam Leslie - Tom Baker - (plus one I don't know - any help?) Tom Tray

[tinkereversandme]

I love the Rucker. I have no issues with pencil either. It just doesn't get the love.

Larry

[Tom Hufford]

It somewhat amazes me that ANY autographs were signed before the advent of the ballpoint pen. Think of the hassle of carrying a fountain pen, taking off the cap (like a sharpie!), trying not to get ink leaking everywhere. Then think about carrying around a sharp pencil and going to the ballpark. I've carried around a lead mark in the palm of my hand for 40+ years, now, where I reached into my pocket and tangled with a freshly sharpened pencil.

[mr2686]

Tom, I think what helped that along was the fact that people purchased programs at the game and kept score...so they had to have something to do that with. Also, I'm wondering if they gave away pencils with the programs, or you provided your own. Either way there must have been a lot of pencils floating around the ballparks.

[GKreindler]

Not that my opinion means much being that I'm not really a collector, but personally I really dig the pencil autographs. I think it doesn't even really come down to an aesthetic thing with me either, which is weird. I mean, an ink signature's boldness can't really be disputed. However, the pencil autograph has somewhat of a charm.

I guess for me it's mainly because it provides an imaginary narrative, that maybe someone at the ballpark had nothing but his/her scorecard and a pencil to score with when he met his/her hero during batting practice. Coming to mind are all of those wonderful photographs of players signing things with kids leaning over the railing or fence in the hopes of even a look of recognition. And then there they are grasping that pencil...

Of course players in those situations signed anything with pencils or pens, but I guess in my hazy, ideal world, it was always a pencil. Weird.

And by the way, the pieces shown in this thread are unreal. I LOVE that Gehrig, David.

Graig

[JasonL]

That one is worth changing your name to Nick!

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by JasonL

That one is worth changing your name to Nick!

Or investing a couple bucks in an art eraser!

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Or investing a couple bucks in an art eraser!

I was thinking the exact same....

Seriously though... would a good art eraser likely eliminate the name completely (with no visible remnants). Or would it devalue the piece more by either smearing it, lightening the paper underneath, or only removing a portion of the lead? I guess I'm trying to ask if it would do more harm than good.

I know there are many here who feel that the integrity of the piece would be compromised, etc. (and I get that). My question is strictly about the effectiveness of these erasers... Just wondering how well art erasers work on pencil lead that's been on a paper surface for 80+ years.

Thanks for any input you can provide.

[David Atkatz]

It would certainly lighten the paper, at the very least.

You'd have to be nuts to erase the inscription! (Or the address on the front, also handwritten by Gehrig--in pencil.)

(BTW,my oldest son's name is Nick, which is why I had to have the postcard.)

[Oldtix]

Probably better to just have your name legally changed...

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It would certainly lighten the paper, at the very least.

You'd have to be nuts to erase the inscription! (Or the address on the front, also handwritten by Gehrig--in pencil.)

(BTW,my oldest son's name is Nick, which is why I had to have the postcard.)

Agree it's far better to leave the Gehrig inscription in tact. There are circumstances, however, where I have wished I could erase parts of an insctiption or other distracting portions. Same goes for the back side of a card with pencil writing.

I've just never had the nerve to actually put eraser to paper, and was wondering if anyone has done this with any success (on an item that's been that way for 80 years or so). I've heard that the art gum erasers can work wonders, but haven't seen it first hand.

[mr2686]

I would never touch an inscription. If it bothered me that much, I would try to frame the autograph and mat out the inscription...although that's not always easy. Last year I purchased a Roberto Clemente autograph that was personalized to someone and then best wishes Roberto Clemente. The first part had been "whited out" which also touched the very top of the H is wishes. The great news is that not only did I get it for an outstanding price, the Roberto Clemente portion was untouched and, with some creative matting, should look just fine along with my other 1960 Pirates.

[perezfan]

Yes... matting it out is always better than tampering. And it sounds like yours was the perfect solution for that Clemente. Would love to see that post when it's completed.

I guess the reason I ask about these erasers is that I have seen many poor jobs of erasing, in which it simply did more harm than good.

But if there was a good execution of the erasing, we would never even know it.... right? We might all be sitting on a few pieces that were erased at some time. Just wondering if anyone here has ever successfully pulled it off (perhaps on the reverse side of a card?)

[william_9]

Ssshhhh......Don't tell the card guys I once removed a pencil notation on a 1964 Willie Mays card. I used a white retractable Clic eraser. Worked well. If you have a light hand you can take off stray marks pretty well without affecting the surface. It will remove sharpie from a glossy photo too. Avoid the gum or kneaded erasers as those have a small amount of abrasives embedded into them and they will, at best, leave small marks behind.

[T206Collector]

...an art eraser to remove pencil from T206 cards, with mixed results. Sometimes it works amazingly well, with no trace of pencil or damage to the cardboard. Sometimes you can still see where the pencil is and the card may appear a bit lighter. With the Gehrig, the "Nick" is really drawn in there deeply and darkly, so I'd probably leave it alone. But it is extremely tempting. I'd probably pay a professional to carefully remove the name for me.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

But it is extremely tempting. I'd probably pay a professional to carefully remove the name for me.

Why?!

The card is an historical artifact. Nick Gillis wrote to Gehrig in 1937, and Gehrig responded. That is an (admittedly extremely minor) historical fact. Why do you have to pretend that Gehrig sent the card to you?

[mr2686]

I agree David, and I'll take it a step futher. On someone like Gehrig, wouldn't you want as many words in his own hand? I could understand if some kid who got an autograph through the mail wrote on it and you wanted to try and erase that, but not something that was written by the actual signer. Just my .02

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Why?!

The card is an historical artifact. Nick Gillis wrote to Gehrig in 1937, and Gehrig responded. That is an (admittedly extremely minor) historical fact. Why do you have to pretend that Gehrig sent the card to you?

The card will be worth more if it didn't say "Nick". The reason for that is because generic signed items sell more than personalized ones, precisely because people want to feel a unique connection to the player.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

The card will be worth more if it didn't say "Nick". The reason for that is because generic signed items sell more than personalized ones, precisely because people want to feel a unique connection to the player.

How absurd--you'd feel a "unique connection to the player" by erasing someone else's name. I feel a unique connection to the player when I hold in my hand the same card or photo or baseball he did.

I don't feel any closer to the Babe holding this: (Ruth died before I was born; he never considered me "his pal.")


than I do holding this:


Yeah--the card will sell for more. A game-used Ruth jersey will bring the buyer more money if he cuts it into one inch squares, glues 'em to baseball cards, and inserts them randomly in the packs he's trying to flog. Is that OK, too?

And you card guys get bent out of shape if a paper fiber is hanging off the otherwise-pristine corner of your T206. Sheesh!

Do us memorabilia guys a favor--stick to cards, and don't go altering historical artifacts in the name of more profit when you resell.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

How absurd--you'd feel a "unique connection to the player" by erasing someone else's name. I feel a unique connection to the player when I hold in my hand the same card or photo or baseball he did.

You are missing the point. The unique connection is not derived by the erasure. I'm talking about the difference between personalized and not personalized. Most people would rather have a signed item that is not personalized than one which was personalized to someone. This is not surprising because it is harder to make the personal connection that drives autograph value when the item screams that connection was intended for someone else.

If you enjoy collecting autographed items that were personalized to other people, have a good time. But many people do not and erasing the name Nick would be tempting for them. You view "Nick" as more valuable words written by a legend. Others view it as four letters they wish Gehrig hadn't written.

If the person who owns this Gehrig decided to erase "Nick" because it would increase his enjoyment of the item, I would not fault him for it. It's his item to do with it as he wishes. And if he's concerned about the economic impact of that decision, I think that's his right. It is naive to ignore the economic realities of the collectibles market when you are spending money on collectibles and you aren't likely to take them with you when you die (although I've heard stories).

To each his own. Sorry you view this item as the Declaration of Independence. If you want to be the Morality Police of how people should treat their sports collectibles, have fun. Get up on your soap box about how one of Ruth's jerseys has been cut up for more collectors to share and that it is an outrage. It's an easy ruse.

Finally, what the paper fiber of T206 cards has to do with this discussion is beyond me. If it was an attack on me for caring about card condition, it was as misguided as it was irrelevant. 99% of my T206 cards are raw PR-VG condition, including my Magie and Plank, the latter of which was owned by Lionel Carter, Mr. Condition-sensitive himself!

But I will take your advice and "stick to cards" -- I've never been interested in collecting memorabilia anyway. The only cross-over here is that I collect signed pre-war cards.

[HRBAKER]

The only "unique" connection I feel is that I am holding or own something that the player has touched/signed. Nothing more than that to me. As for personalization that is for each person to decide for themselves. It certainly wouldn't keep me from buying something I wanted if it was personalized and I can't see myself trying to remove it afterwards. In rare cases I have bought something just because it was personalized.

[T206Collector]

But, c'mon, David and Jeff.... the two examples you shared of not caring if it was personalized (or wanting it more) were both personalized with your names. Of course the feeling would be different there.

To be clear, obviously a fair number of autograph collectors will still buy something regardless of whether it was personalized to someone else. For me, I'd collect personalized T206 cards every day of the week. But it is also obvious that non-personalized, signed items are in higher demand and appeal to a wider audience.

[David Atkatz]

No, you are "missing the point." The point is a holograph item, is, in general, an historic artifact. As such, it should not be altered. Period.

The Ruth jersey was not cut up so that "more collectors could share." It was cut up so that Upper Deck would make more money. And it is a totally relevant analogy, as your first point was that the postcard would be worth more (i,e., sell for more) without the word "Nick."

I also collect historical autographs--what many purists would call "real" autograph collecting. (I don't call it that, so don't jump down my throat.) In that realm a simple signature is scorned. The real value is in an item's content and historical importance--letters with "good" content, and historically meaningful documents. Those letters are, of course, addressed to someone, and in almost every case it's someone other than the letter's current owner. In the past, many of these items have been destroyed by people's simply clipping off the signature to obtain "an autograph." Erasing a salutation is the same thing, differing only, perhaps, in degree, but not in kind.

When dealing with an artifact, the rule is "First, do no harm." No museum would consider for an instant the mutilation of a piece. Collectors have the same responsibility towards history.

And if the reference to the card's side almost anal compulsion with condition is beyond you, think a bit harder. You wouldn't dream of changing the condition of a card--any alteration is verboten; treat "autographs' the same way.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

But it is also obvious that non-personalized, signed items are in higher demand and appeal to a wider audience.

Fine. If you are willing to pay more for an uninscribed item, more power to you. But don't try to make non-personalized items out of personalized items.

Better condition cards are in higher demand than poor condition cards, but it's an absolute no-no to "improve" the condition of a card. Artifacts should be treated the same way.

[HRBAKER]

No, my point was and is that I have never let the fact that something was personalized keep me from buying it, I have never considered altering it after I did and on rare occasions (such as the one above) havebought something that I would not have otherwise bought solely bc it was personalized.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The Ruth jersey was not cut up so that "more collectors could share." It was cut up so that Upper Deck would make more money.

There are many collectors who love it, which is why there was money in it. Profit was generated by the interest in sharing the jersey.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The real value is in an item's content and historical importance--letters with "good" content, and historically meaningful documents.

Absolutely. But that's a different kind of collector. Some people collect single signed, sweet spot balls, and would erase the non-sweet spot second signature. Some people like letters with historical content. Again, to each his own.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

When dealing with an artifact, the rule is "First, do no harm." No museum would consider for an instant the mutilation of a piece. Collectors have the same responsibility towards history.

You are ascribing a moral responsibility to collecting baseball artifacts. If that's your value system, more power to you. I more or less agree with you that "Nick" should not be erased. But I would totally understand and not pass judgment on the person who would.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

And if the reference to the card's side almost anal compulsion with condition is beyond you, think a bit harder. You wouldn't dream of changing the condition of a card--any alteration is verboten; treat "autographs' the same way.

In my post above (#31), I admitted erasing pencil from T206 cards. I do not think that is verboten. I understand some card purists do, but I don't. And both SGC and PSA will grade T206 cards with evidence of erasures. PSA will still give it an MK qualifier, which they would have done even if the pencil had not been erased; and SGC will just grade it an SGC 40 or lower.

And in any event, the reason it must have been "beyond me" is that your original post was not about card alteration, but instead a reference to corner damage, which I still think is irrelevant to this discussion.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

No, my point was and is that I have never let the fact that something was personalized keep me from buying it, I have never considered altering it after I did and on rare occasions (such as the one above) havebought something that I would not have otherwise bought solely bc it was personalized.

But you acknowledge that some people stay away from personalized things? And that it would not be surprising that you would have bought something solely because it was personalized if the personalization had your name, right?

Also, again, context is everything. There are about a million Gehrigs on ebay right now. So collectors can be a bit picky about holding out for a non-personalized example. But if there was a signed T206 on ebay personalized to someone, I'd buy it regardless for the same price because it is likely a 1 of 1.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

the reason it must have been "beyond me" is that your original post was not about card alteration, but instead a reference to corner damage, which I still think is irrelevant to this discussion.

It is relevant. Why are card guys upset at a bit of corner damage? What do they want? They want the cards to be exactly as they were when they left the factory--any deviation from that lowers the value in their world.

Well, I want a Gehrig autographed item, for example, to be exactly as it was when it left Gehrig's hand.

Just as you're not allowed to trim a card to produce perfect corners--making it (superficially) look "better," so, too, should you not be allowed to remove part of an autograph.

[perezfan]

Great points, and well articulated by both sides. It's an interesting debate, but ultimately there is no right or wrong! That's the beauty of this hobby... collect what you like

[J.McMurry]

ya'll seem to have blurred the "market difference" between modern and vintage autographs.
When buying modern autographs personalization is BAD.
when buying vintage sigs, it's ok(especially Ruths, gehrigs, cobbs, etc.)

It's not a hard and fast rule,but similar to the card market belief that,"prewar must be in a SGC holder, and post war in a PSA holder".

To each his own.

[Gary Dunaier]

I'm on the side of those who feel the personalization represents a few extra words in the player's hand. For those whose attitude is "it's something the player actually touched," personalization means the player touched it a little longer in order. Maybe just another second or two, but still...

As far as the whole pencil v. ink issue, ink seems more "permanent" than pencil, comments about pencil sigs not fading notwithstanding. In my mind there's always that possibility that a pencil autograph could be erased.

But I love the point Tom Hufford made about having to deal with a fountain pen, trying not to get ink leaking everywhere, that sort of thing, especially with crowds of excited kids surrounding you. We, with our modern Sharpies and Bics and other ink pens, don't have to deal with that concern, and since I, for one, have never really had to use a fountain pen, I just think of pens the way we use 'em now in 2010.

[Exhibitman]

If it looks nice pencil is fine with me, and it is often a lot cheaper than ink.

[Michael B]

I see that this old thread has been resurrected by Adam and being a new member I thought I would add my perspective. I personally have no problem with pencil signatures. Sometimes you need to collect what you can find. When I was heavily buying and selling Civil War signatures in the 1980's and early 1990's you rarely had a choice on what you could acquire, especially with generals who were killed in battle. There are a few where the easiest item to acquire is a signed stock certificate or an envelope addressed to their wife as "Mrs. fill in the blank". If you want/need the signature, that is what you accept.

I would not erase any pencil if it was in the persons hand, but if it was in anothers hand and it detracted from what I was interested it I would consider it. The first scan is a case in point. I purchased this album page that was signed by some professional wrestler and David Sheppard. Sheppard won a silver medal in weightlifting at the 1956 Olympics and died in 2000. He is a good signature for Olympic collectors. The wrestler's signature was just about Sheppard's and just touching the 'D' in David. By erasing the other signature I now have a nicely signed album page of a deceased Olympic medalist. Looking closely you can see the remnants of the signature touching the 'D' and the ghost impression of the signature left by the pressure on the paper. Using a photo loupe you can see some disruption of the paper, but it does not detract from the page. I used a Sanford Magic Rub eraser. They are white and non abrasive like artist erasers. Another consideration for pencil signatures: They don't run or fade if wet. If you had a small clip or item glued to another page using one of the old glues, that is animal based, soaking the item in distilled water will not damage the signature. Putting it between two pieces of absorbent paper like paper towels and pressing with any heavy weight or books will prevent rippling. I use an old book press I pulled out of the trash on the sidewalk in Downtown Boston about 25 years ago. Think of the machine used by Uncle Fester in the Addams Family TV show.

As for personalizaiton, I don't like it in person, but if it is an older item I love it as it is additional writing in the hand of the person. Below are three examples from an autograph album I found on ebay. It was owned by a young girl named Sonja who lived in Chicago. After the 1932 Olympics in Los Angeles the German Olympic team stayed there overnight on their way to New York to catch an ocean liner back home. She got about 20 signatures of team members in her book. Fortunately the seller had no clue as to what they were other than German signatures. The book include these:

Emil Hirschfeld (1903-1968) - won a bronze medal in shotput 1928. No medal in 1932. Inscribed to Sonja and mentions the Olympics, Chicago, his hometown and is dated

Jochen Buchner (19905-78) - won a bronze medal in the 400m in 1928. No medal in 1932. Great personalized inscription along with a sketch.

Fritz Hendrix (1901-41) - silver medal in Los Angeles in the 4x100m relay. Not personalized, but a great inscription. He was killed on the Russian Front at Leningrad in 1941 while a member of the German Army. His wife also signed the book and competed in 3 Olympics and his daughter won a silver medal in 1964.

[jgmp123]

Great forum topic...

- Early 1958 Roberto Clemente signed scorecard....

- Chief Bender and Earle Combs signed newspaper....