![]() |
Signed Back In The Day: More Desirable?
I've always felt that items signed 'back in the day' during a player's career are more interesting to own and should sell for a premium over those signed after a player retires. When I've gone after autographs of (especially) postwar players I often gravitate to team issues, McCarthy PCs, RPPCs, and so on that were signed and postmarked during the player's career.
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...igned%20PC.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...Autod%20PC.jpg I was just curious whether others think of it as I do. Your views on it? |
Yes, not even close
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Agreed. Love the earlier/playing days signatures over modern day/post career
|
Absolutely. Vintage rules.
|
I'm partial toward after they've died, aka Coaches Corner.
|
Collecting vintage is absolutely what it's all about! :cool:
|
Vintage autos
I'd much prefer a playing days signature over a modern day version, and in many cases would pay a premium...it's very neat to see the evolution of a players signature as the demand for it increases...
|
1 Attachment(s)
I'll also ask you this, you tell me? Here's an example of both.
Attachment 220520 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
God, I hate Sharpie!
|
Quote:
Exactly [emoji6] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
1 Attachment(s)
|
God, I hate PSA and JSA stickers on the front of photos!
|
Quote:
I personally would prefer to have left the vintage signed rookie exactly the way it was with a ball point early sig... |
Quote:
Me too, I just bought it a year ago with both signatures already on it... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
not a rookie, but here's my example of modern vs period:
http://caimages.collectors.com/psaim...ADNAbowman.jpg http://caimages.collectors.com/psaim...SNArichard.jpg |
Great Mantle example, but the trifecta would be if he had lived into the 21st century and developed an unreadable glyph.
|
While I generally agree vintage tends to be more desirable everything else being equal, but there are other key factors such as medium, condition and signature quality.
A vintage Mantle would be great, but if it's a scribbled signature on a stained scrap of a menu, I'd prefer a later era signed photo in pristine condition. While I understand some collectors like the gathered-in-the-wild and aged look of old ad hoc items and feel it adds to the charm, it's not my cup of tea. :) |
I personally would rather have the Yaz sharpie signature over the pen signature on the card with both. The ink signature just looks to be of lesser quality, like the pen skipped or maybe the glossiness of the card prevented a smooth signature. A better ink signature and maybe I sway the other way, but the early signature looks so juvenile.
|
If everything is equal, signature quality, medium quality, placement of sig, etc, I would prefer a vintage signed item, but to me the most difficult thing to decide is how much more I would be willing to pay. It would be more, but probably less than twice the price of the newer sig. The exceptions would probably be a rookie year signed rookie card.
|
Quote:
|
I don't have a preference re: vintage vs. modern so much as I HATE sharpie sigs. For a lot of vintage players there are no sharpie sigs. But for the guys who lived later it can be really challenging finding a nice ink signature. I waited forever to find this Maris. You can find a thousand of them in blue sharpie, but it's a lot harder to find the ink:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...psoagnj3vs.png |
If the item media is similar, and in similar condition, I will take the vintage signature 100% of the time. Especially if it is a playing career signature.
When you are talking about players from the 1950's and back who lived into the 1980's (at least), playing career signatures, especially singles, are simply much scarcer than latter day autographs. They may not be as aesthetically pleasing sometimes, but I will always pay a premium for a nice vintage signature as opposed to a nice recently signed item. Tom C |
1 Attachment(s)
My favorite Maris Auto
|
'69 Mets - 1969 vs Reunion ball
This is kind of fun Period '69 Mets: https://goldinauctions.com/lot-2556.aspx Reunion '69 Mets: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...12.html#photos |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I love my old balls. |
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Take a look for yourself: The 1st ball was signed by Nolan circa 1969; the 2nd ball is the vintage 1969 team ball sold in the auction referenced ^. A pretty obvious difference to anyone that knows Nolan's signature... Gary Gentry also appears to be added later as his autograph crosses over Nolan's modern era signature. |
Quote:
|
Signed back in the day
I have owned alot of cards signed over 35 years ago, almost all in blue sharpie.
properly stored, I defy anyone to be able to tell if they were not signed last week or 35 years ago. Sharpe holds up very well. Some ball points do not. I would hate to have signed cards in ball point that after 35 years they look lke they were signed in 1930's (fading). Some are now rather rare signatures, but still look great!! (my 2 cents) JJ |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:38 AM. |