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

[HOFautosChris]

Here is my favorite item in my collection and it happens to be a pencil signature. Program signed by Rabbit Maranville, George Specs Torporcer, George Selkirk and Rip Collins.

I also remember reading somewhere that Pencil is a permanent medium and that ink by composition will break down. Do not know how true that is but this looks as good I imagine as the day it was signed 75 years ago.

[David Atkatz]

Quite true, Chris. Ink fades, pencil does not.

[martindl]

Originally Posted by perezfan

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 run an antique mall and routinely use a gum based art eraser on old paper, most typically antique books. We'll remove an old pencilled-in price. Successfully erasing all signs of the graphite, without affecting the paper, has as much to do with the paper as anything else.

The Gehrig is on old high-pulp high-acid type paper, which is why it has toned some. Any attempts to erase the pencil would be very obvious.

As an aside, I'm totally with David on never altering items.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Here's my pencil beauty:

F ME, that's a beaut David!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd erase the "Nick" and write in "David". Better yet, just save the erasing and cut out the "Nick" part...then you'd really have something special there

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

F ME, that's a beaut David!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd erase the "Nick" and write in "David". Better yet, just save the erasing and cut out the "Nick" part...then you'd really have something special there

+1

[chaddurbin]

missed out on this good thread the 1st go round. agreed would never erase any personalized inscription. i'm one of those who don't mind personal inscriptions, even if i'm the farthest-looking from an "otto".

great gehrig sig from david, but does the "nick" look out of place to anybody else? i don't know gehrig's handwriting but the nick just look odd when you compare to the "best wishes, lou gehrig" part. if you'd told me nick wrote in "nick" there himself i would believe it.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

F ME, that's a beaut David!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd erase the "Nick" and write in "David". Better yet, just save the erasing and cut out the "Nick" part...then you'd really have something special there

Nick's my son's name. One day, it will be his.
(Not that it's not a good idea...)

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

missed out on this good thread the 1st go round. agreed would never erase any personalized inscription. i'm one of those who don't mind personal inscriptions, even if i'm the farthest-looking from an "otto".

great gehrig sig from david, but does the "nick" look out of place to anybody else? i don't know gehrig's handwriting but the nick just look odd when you compare to the "best wishes, lou gehrig" part. if you'd told me nick wrote in "nick" there himself i would believe it.

The "Nick" doesn't look odd at all, Chad--it's most definitely in Gehrig's handwriting. Here's how he addressed the other side:

[Michael B]

David,

I can see why Chad may have thought it was in a different hand. I looks like Gehrig wrote the salutation and then stopped to double check the name and when he started again he left a large space between 'wishes' and 'Nick'. It also looks like he may have turned the pencil a bit and gotten a new edge. That is why pencil signatures are so great. They can have a lot of character, much like a fountain pen. From my perspective it is easy to see that it is all in Gehrig's hand. The flair in 'Nick' fits with the rest of the writing and the 'i' is very consistent.

Cheers,

Michael

[chaddurbin]

michael--you summed up my observation perfectly and your theory makes alot of sense. that's a beautiful piece and you'd have to be crazy to erase the "nick".

[PowderedH2O]

I've got quite a few signatures in pencil in my Olympic collection. This is especially true when dealing with signatures in scrapbooks or small pieces of paper on athletes prior to 1960. I think they look just fine. What's funny is that these might be frowned upon, yet people will get baseballs and index cards signed with sharpies and have no problem with it, and in ten years those autographs will look wretched.

[Rob L]

Here's one:

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

I've got quite a few signatures in pencil in my Olympic collection. This is especially true when dealing with signatures in scrapbooks or small pieces of paper on athletes prior to 1960. I think they look just fine. What's funny is that these might be frowned upon, yet people will get baseballs and index cards signed with sharpies and have no problem with it, and in ten years those autographs will look wretched.

If you believe that, then you should always carry a pencil with you when you are paying for your favorite players' autograph.

But for really old autographs you are usually getting what you see. That pencilled Lou Gehrig looks fantastic - especially compared to some of the crappy faded pen ones we see - but if I had my choice between pencil and ink, conditions being the same, I'm taking ink (except green ink on a non-Cobb).

That's just me, but I understand how some prefer pencil.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Runscott

If you believe that, then you should always carry a pencil with you when you are paying for your favorite players' autograph.

But for really old autographs you are usually getting what you see. That pencilled Lou Gehrig looks fantastic - especially compared to some of the crappy faded pen ones we see - but if I had my choice between pencil and ink, conditions being the same, I'm taking ink (except green ink on a non-Cobb).

That's just me, but I understand how some prefer pencil.

I actually like both but was wondering if PSA or Spence will authenticate a pencil signature?

[jgmp123]

I just picked this up in the BST section...a beautiful Mickey Cochrane signed in pencil. It's not only a beautiful piece, but it will never fade.

[PowderedH2O]

Originally Posted by Runscott

If you believe that, then you should always carry a pencil with you when you are paying for your favorite players' autograph.

But for really old autographs you are usually getting what you see. That pencilled Lou Gehrig looks fantastic - especially compared to some of the crappy faded pen ones we see - but if I had my choice between pencil and ink, conditions being the same, I'm taking ink (except green ink on a non-Cobb).

That's just me, but I understand how some prefer pencil.

I actually love ball point signatures. But, if I had a choice between a sharpie or a pencil on a paper item (not glossy, or a photo) I would prefer the pencil. And oddly enough, I usually do have a pencil handy.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

I actually love ball point signatures. But, if I had a choice between a sharpie or a pencil on a paper item (not glossy, or a photo) I would prefer the pencil. And oddly enough, I usually do have a pencil handy.

I don't collect anything from the 'Sharpie' error....I mean 'era'.

Also, I would imagine pencils don't work so well on today's glossy items.

[khkco4bls]

This is my jackie robinson from a 47 leather auto book which people carried around the ballpark. Beautiful bold pencil auto.