Just a Note Saying Goodbye to Legible Autographs:
 

Behold - two team-signed balls:

one from the 1960s Giants and the other much more recent - also from the SF Giants

Attachment 390960Attachment 390961

What country is the second one from? Looks like chicken scratches or a foreign language.;):D

oops! I added that detail...as unbelievable as it is.



=======

I understand people today writing illegible signatures, but for athletes/celebrities writing "autographs", there's just no reason to be so careless. And it shows how little they actually "care" about their fans.

It's a real shame.

Cursive is on it's way out and from the perspective of signatures, a damn shame. Anywhere else, I say good riddance. Trying to read some peoples hand writing in letters back in the day was a nightmare.

So, if cursive is on the way out, does that make legible vintage autographs more desirable or in time will they go the way of 8 track tapes?

I'd say MUCH more desirable.

Who would collect that? What even is the point?

I am definitely not a fan of multi-signature items like balls or team photros when you can't ID the signature to a specific player. Crappy signatures of players on their cards or photos is a little better, because at least you know who you have,

That ball shown above is awful. Even if you know who they are, it just looks like a bunch of stray pen marks like someone was pushing the ball up a hill with an uncapped ballpoint pen!

That said, I am 50 years old now and my signature has become illegible over the years.

The saddest part is that the players on the modern ball were either compensated for signing or at the very least were signing for charity (judging by the MLB hologram). I can even understand these kids doling out scrawls if it's for free, but if you're being compensated, come up with a more attractive representation. Many players do have two versions, but not too many of the younger guys. Hey, you're famous; if you're young and don't know cursive, learn it for just this purpose. You owe the people doling out money a little more than what is seen above. Feel free to scribble (or not sign at all) when it's not a business transaction. That's your choice, as it's your choice to sign for compensation.

Yet people line up to pay a David Ortiz a minimum of $200 for some loopy lines.

I think the terrible signatures is the main reason the autographed cards issued in packs are so popular, at least you have a idea who it is. Would be next to impossible to authenticate most current autographs on a ball or photo.

One of my bosses has two different signatures. One for business & personal stuff that is completely illegible (it would look great on that modern Giants ball, and nobody would be the wiser), and another for when he signs "autographs" which is quite legible, and because of that would stick out like a sore thumb on that 1960s Giants ball.

My two cents, not worth much but I think there are three main reasons the trend to illegibility...

1) As has been stated in previous posts, penmanship, cursive, heck writing is no longer taught in most schools. With the advent of keyboard input and texting, the need to write for most younger folks is less and less, so there is no "practice". I think even the practice of drafting, where one learned to pen perfect block letters, has been supplanted by CAD computer software.

2) In the 1990s I discussed autographs with an athlete friend of mine and he surprised me with the comment that agents were advising against signing autographs for fear of identity theft and that if they did want to sign autographs that they should develop a "mark" that was different than their signature on legal documents.

3) This is conjecture on my part, but with the rise of eBay the numbers of people seeking autographs has risen (opportunists thinking they can profit from the autographs AND/OR the perception that an autograph has some intrisinc $$$ value), and those players who do want to sign autographs have to shorten the time it takes to sign as much as they can. One can see how a player in the minors may have a semi-decent autograph but as the years go by it gets worse and worse.

In today's society, when meeting someone famous, selfies have replaced the autograph so it will be interesting to see how "social distancing" affects this in the coming years. I imagine that access to famous people will get even harder now.

I'll keep my magnificent Charles Gehringer, but when I saw the Ichiro Suzuki autographs (even though I know his is a different language), I ended my quest to collect all living Hall-of-Famers and those players, like Suzuki, who are sure to make it. They want $240 for the Suzuki auto

Attachment 391176Attachment 391177

I primarily work for two people, both are "famous" I use quotes because it's a hard thing to define.

One of them (I've been with him for 6 years) will sign anything put in front of him by anybody, as many as he's asked to sign, he will sign them with no hesitation. Ebayer? He doesn't care.

The other (who I've been with for 13 years) won't sign anything at airports, hotels, or entering / leaving a venue. If I take 3 things into his dressing room to get signed, I will seldom succeed completely. He won't sign a guitar or a guitar part for anybody, including me. He assumes we're all ebayers. He's the one with two signatures who I mentioned earlier.

Doug

I'm not an athlete or famous, but I do utilize a work signature and a personal signature for personal business.

This same thread gets made every month but you know what I've noticed about this part of the forum? It doesn't matter who signed it or when it was signed, this board doesn't have any trouble telling you whose autograph you're looking at. So what does it really matter?

Both of the autographs pictured below were signed by Jackie Bradley Jr. of the Red Sox for me last year, signed in a casual relaxed setting at Fenway for my son.

I had the chance to ask him why such a difference in his signatures, and he told me he used to always try to sign in the very neat legible way, but it just got hard for him to do baseballs that way, so he abbreviated it when signing balls. Then it morphed into signing that way when he was trying to sign a bunch of things. But when he has the chance, he will take his time and sign in a manner where you can read the whole name.

I thought it was a breath of fresh air to at least be able to see a signature I could read, if only in one of them!

The last few years of his life, Harmon Killebrew would spend time with the Arizona Diamondbacks in spring training, and one of the messages he would always give, as part of his yearly talk was:

"I've never understood why you guys have spent your entire life struggling and working hard to get here and then when you do, and someone asks for your autograph, you scribble something that not even your mother can read. You're a Major Leaguer, be proud of what you've accomplished, be proud of your autograph! Sign it so that 50 years from now, a little kid might pick it up and say "Wow, grandpa met (famous name) and got his autograph!"

I think we would appreciate the ball on the right more if we were more sympathetic to major trends in contemporary art.

Stare at it long enough.......
 

If you stare at it long enough.........

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...942ca751_b.jpg

That is nice to hear. Killebrew had a great signature too.

THAT is an amazing post...

I get both sides of it. I once worked with a guy who got a cup of coffee with the yankees and we talked about autograph signings. He had a really nice signature now but all his bowman autos were basically his initials and lines. He explained that signing 10,000 cards for a card company can for one be really time consuming and two that none of the collectors tended to care (I do but just look at any of the breaks on youtube and you'll see people going nuts when they pull open a Zion, Ja, or Barrett auto which are all look terrible). He then pointed out that at the ballpark a lot of guys want to sign for as many kids as possible and they would focus on quantity vs quality. Looking at Mike Trout's auto I can see his point.

He also noticed that even older players who used to have beautiful signatures have deteriorated over the course of their careers as they were requested to sign more and more autographs (e.g. Ripken) and that most players that started in the 90's or later have never been in a time where autographs weren't in high demand and therefore had bad signatures from the get go.

I like the idea of players who have two signatures and I would probably due something of the same. Particularly for card companies. If I were to sign 10,000 prospect cards, they would likely be quick and dirty but if it were for some type of more limited product I would take more time... I think this might be another reason why you see such a differential between the autos pulled out of topps products from the current and future players and the old timers who often only sign in limited numbers.

I completely get it. I used to post so much in Internet forums that eventually I just clicked the 'like' and didn't post. Willie Mays taught me that no one needs to be able to read my signature, so now nobody can. I feel more important also.

Okay, I'm really too lazy to post here anymore. Leon - please add that 'like' option so I can show gratitude to people who think, without having to actually tell them!