What used to be the consensus on getting Vintage cards signed?
 

I feel like getting cards signed now, is pretty commonplace, especially with the advent of companies releasing cards with players autographs on them. For those that have been in the Hobby for a long time, and started collecting during the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80s etc, how did people back then feel about getting their cards signed? Did people pass on an opportunity to get a card signed because they thought it would "ruin" the card?

I remember when I was getting into collecting as a kid in the 90s it wasn't unusual to walk around the card show and see signed versions of cards priced lower than their unsigned counterparts. These were the days before grading and TPA's but it seemed like in general the rule of thumb was an autographed card has undesirable writing on it.

I also think this might be the reason there are so many later issue Mantle and DiMaggio and Ted Williams signed cards (like the old Pacific and Ted Williams company cards). People I think were reluctant to have their "good" cards signed but happy to add a signature to something else.

I started collecting in the late 1980s, so I don't satisfy your field criteria. However, I subscribed to a well-know price guide magazine during that period, as I'm sure most older collectors did as well, and religiously read every article every month.

I clearly remember one issue had an article that explained that an autograph actually decreased the card's value, because it was altering it. After reading that article, I would never have a player sign my best copy. I would purchase another one, usually one that was not in as good a condition as my main copy (because why would I purchase an expensive copy and then have the player's signature immediately reduce its value?), and have the player sign it.

Only if I would have know what I know now. :confused:

You are absolutely correct. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, if you wanted to get a card signed, you picked one that wasn't valuable to begin with, as getting a card signed seriously reduced it's value.

You never got a star's rookie card signed, nor did you get a card like a 1970 Topps Bench, or 1972 Topps Garvey or Carew signed.

Steve

I updated my original post, I meant the 80's as well when I said etc! I'm not gonna lie the idea of having one original untouched copy and then one signed copy is something I really like. I'd amend it to have both of the cards around the same condition but I'm amazed by the fact that signed cards would book LESS back then.

Pretty incredible to think about, I can imagine someone having a Willie Mays 51 Bowman and his 67 topps and saying "I'm gonna keep the bowman as it is and get this cheaper topps signed!"

I distinctly remember a card show in the '70s where i passed on a '53 Topps Mantle because Mantle had ruined it by defacing it with his signature.

I also remember that the players even knew about the "rule". More than once, I would hear or see a player ask the person if they were sure they wanted them to sign a particular card, as that was "my rookie card". Mickey Mantle would ask that if someone gave him his '52 Topps card to sign at a show.

Steve

The rule of thumb was to not get a card signed that was worth more than the autograph. So, rookie cards and high grade cards were to be left alone.

Fascinating how times change. What Steve said about Mantle during his shows makes me think how many other players also thought this and asked people if they were sure, that they wanted the card signed.

I was getting all the stars to sign their 1965 Topps cards, but never got Mantle because it was after his cards had taken off and even a VG copy was worth more than his auto. I also got the 1959 Topps Baseball Thrills subset signed because it gave me cheaper cards of Mantle, Musial, Mays, etc. to use. We got lots of cards autographed just not the "high end" ones.

I guess I was ahead of the times...

Too bad I decided to go other directions.

I love the 65 set:

https://live.staticflickr.com/894/42...7e08158e_w.jpg

I understand, if you don't mind me asking, what year was this when you were trying to get the stars to sign their 65 topps cards?

Doug, I love those Red Man tobacco cards! Some great ones you have there. Which years are they from?

65 Has to be my favorite set from the 60's

I was a TTM hound as a kid. I had no problem sending any newer cards through the mail to get signed, because there was a seemingly inexhaustible supply of them around and I could live with it if the players ignored my requests. However, with the 'ancient' star cards from the 60's (that my brothers and I had scant few of) it was a huge leap of faith, so I'd only send away cards in rough shape (to Mays, Aaron, etc.). The good news is I got a ton of them back. I knew autographs 'ruined' cards value-wise, but I freaking loved seeing one of my SASE's returned in the mail. Totally awesome!!!!

Around 1988. I was doing shows all over the country. I picked this one up

https://live.staticflickr.com/1744/4...56626122_m.jpg

and got these signed

https://live.staticflickr.com/970/26...674ab367_m.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/863/26...69afd3c0_m.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/908/41...67ba48e7_m.jpg

Here are my 59s
https://live.staticflickr.com/4463/3...c48c0d3a_m.jpghttps://live.staticflickr.com/4443/3...e9612e07_m.jpg

I remember hearing this story about Andy Pafko and his 52 Topps card.

Funny because I'd wager a guess while Andy stopped signing, his kids kept the carss sent to him ttm. Sent him 3, never had one returned!

I can also confirm the idea in the 1980's that is was bad form to get an expensive card signed. It was pretty much the consensus that an autograph on a nice card hurt the value, not by a little but by A LOT.

Honestly, it never made much sense to me and I should have followed my gut that that wasn't going to be that way forever. I did to a degree and picked up a few nice cards but I never had the available funds as a kid to do much with the thought process.

There were several collectors in the 1950s and 60s who were getting baseball cards signed, including some like Jeff Morey, Tom Marsilio, Don “Barefoot” Post, and John D. Wagner, who pursued autographs on pre-war cards. The recent sales of the Uncle Jimmy signed Goudey collection show this aspect of the hobby was active as far back as the 1930s and 1940s.

Here’s a fun article from autograph pioneer Jack Smalling published in the April 1966 Sports Trader. Smalling talks about his pursuit of Mantle’s signature on his 1951, 1952, 1954, and 1955 Bowman cards. Read on to see what happened to Jack’s ‘51 Bowman Mantle!

https://live.staticflickr.com/7915/4...72a31470_b.jpg

I remember running card shows in the early to mid '90's in the Chicago area and I had Andy Pafko as an autograph guest. As the line of autograph seekers filed past Mr. Pafko, a twenty-something collector plopped down a '52 Pafko he wanted signed.

We all tried to talk him out of it.

The autograph will devalue a big dollar card we told him.

He is going to regret getting that card signed we told him.

Mr. Pafko tried to talk him out of it.

The collector persisted he wanted his card signed. I looked at Andy and he looked at me, shrugged his shoulders and put his autograph on the card.

As soon as the sharpie hit the cardboard, the whole room groaned!!

Does it make me a bad person if I don't know?

I bought a stack of I think 20 or 30 of them at a flea market for $2 when I was I think about 15 years old. Prior to that I had never seen one, they barely fit in the envelope when I sent them to player TTM.

One of my favorite old time players was dodgers HOFer Harold “Pee Wee” Reese. I got to meet him in person - along with Johnny Bench at a charity golf event on Long Island over two (maybe close to three) decades ago.

I brought a few low dollar value cards and a ball for him to sign and a reprint of the 1953 Bowman set ... one of my all time favorite cardboard images. To this day I regret not having him sign the original card. But back in the day it was too valuable to ruin

Not at all! I believe the images were the same but they were produced over multiple years. I believe the tabs that were on them designated the year. I think your story adds a bit of charm to it!

At the end of college days I knew a few days in advance that I'd have a chance to meet Jim Bunning. I asked him to sign 3 or 4 cards, which he gladly did. One was a really nice Topps rookie card of his. That card was worth more than his autograph. Thinking through what's been said, seems like rookie cards are less likely to be signed, therefor worth more? For me it wasn't about money or resale value, I recall seeing him pitch for the Phillies, I was glad to have his signature on a few of his cards. That meeting was about 35 years ago, I'm glad I still have them.

My recollection was that back when, it wasn't that unusual to encounter a player who wouldn't sign a baseball card. I have mailed cards to players with SASE's and sometimes I got a signed 3x5 and the card back unsigned, sometimes just a signed 3x5. Sometimes I would get signed 3x5s, and some privately printed cards that the player had gotten made, which he'd signed. And a couple of times I send two 3x5s and an SASE, then got back blank 3x5s and a signed card, they didn't like signing a blank piece of paper. I respected the players, so I respect their individual approaches to signing...

So, getting vintage stuff signed? What's the goal? To increase value so you can sell it for more money??? Grrrrr... Get a card signed because you collected autographed cards, or autographs of a team.... I think some players resent autograph seekers who are gonna get an autograph for free so they can then sell it for a profit. Those "some" feel like they should benefit financially from the sale of their signatures. Some players are indifferent to it all. I think if you collect that stuff / team / year / set signed, then fine. I don't recall ever selling anything I've gotten signed. I guess one day I may well sell some of that stuff...

The first baseball player autographs I ever got were of 3 Philadelphia Phillies before a 1965 game in St. Louis. Dad had gotten lower deck seats on the visitors side of the field. I'm a kid with a scorecard, it's still during batting practice, and players are signing. I borrow a pen from Dad and go down to the rail on Dad's suggestion. I was a bit scared, by myself. Cookie Rojas was signing, and he was the player I had heard of, an All Star that year. He was talking to a man (who then seemed old to me) so I gravitated to two other players who were signing. A big tall player was first, I looked at his number in the scorecard, he was Gary Wagner, a young pitcher. He willingly signed and I thanked him. Then there was this old guy, he had gray whiskers and hadn't shaved in a couple of days, a fair amount of gray in his hair. He politely signed and I thanked him. I moved toward Rojas, and waited and waited... he was still talking to this man, and they were talking about restaurants in St. Louis. Eventually he reached toward my scorecard and pen, and he signed. I joyfully thanked him and ran back to my family. Dad asked me who had signed. I told him Cookie Rojas, Gary Wagner, and some old guy. Dad looked at he signature and said "that's Lew Burdette, his is the best autograph you got." At that time I had read and reread my copy of Carmichael's My Greatest Day in Baseball. My baseball awareness was based on bits of history I could remember from about 1962, and what I had read in that book. Nothing about those Milwaukee World Series teams were in my awareness yet. As the years went by I can better see that Dad was right about that.

I too remember many years ago when it was taboo and frowned upon to have a vintage card signed. Was considered "ruining" the card. I think we've seen in recent years, it's actually the opposite, and obviously with players like Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, (Goudeys, early Topps, etc), they've become very sought after and desirable.

I'm actually selling this example in the current Heritage Platinum Auction...shameless plug. :)

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...ignment-112816

Another aspect of it was this:

Before the mid-1990s, card collecting and autograph collecting were really, two separate things. The mind-set was that card collectors wanted their cards "as-issued", and autograph collectors just wanted the autograph. Someone looking for a Mantle autograph wouldn't pay the higher price for the card, when an 8x10 photo was just as good.

Now that card companies are doing pack-issued autographed cards, it's served to bring the two separate areas (card collecting / autograph collecting), together.

Steve

Among old-time collectors there was such a prejudice that the cards often sold for far less than the cards themselves were worth just because of the signature. I always thought it was really cool so I happily bought lots of signed ones. Got some of my own signed too. When it was less 'industrial' than it is now you could even supply your own pens and ask the athlete to sign in a specific place and they would happily accommodate you. I did that with these two:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0Gehringer.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...y%20Herman.jpg

Gehringer was a mail-order and he still accommodated.

Did you read the article Doug posted? Mantle kept the 1951 Bowman the guy sent for an autograph! :eek: I hope it was a duplicate.

Just got back from Nolan Ryan Foundation (with hologram on back). First card I bought 15+ years ago from eBay after my getting my first real job (card was marked on a corner).

Attachment 439143


*Also bought a Jordan rookie and it turned out to fake (man I so wish it is real now).

Unfortunately, back in the day my LCS didn't have any signed cards, and when I went to shows I didn't look for them.

Also, enlighten someone who doesn't know anything about autographs: why are so many of them signed in blue sharpie?

I found myself chuckling, I won't lie. I'm sure he was able to replace it though!

1. Ball-point pen signatures often provide poor contrast, and can tend to skip.
2. Black sharpie also provides poor contrast on dark cards, and can yellow over time
3. Red ink can fade

So, blue sharpie became the go-to pen.

Steve

I’ve also noticed older players signing with sharpie because they don’t have to press as hard as they do with a pen. Though just as a fountain pen signature would look out of place on a modern card, I will usually avoid a sharpie signature on an old card if there is a pen one available instead.

To the OP’s question, I first got into vintage around 2006, when I bought a 1949 Bowman Bobby Doerr. I was telling the LCS owner about my plan to send it TTM, and he was shaking his head before I had finished my sentence. I lost that card a while later, but in 2014 I picked up a replacement and got that one signed. Around that same time, I was starting my 1953 Topps project, and I initially had some trepidation about getting cards signed, but then I figured if I was buying low grade commons for $3-4 each, then there wasn’t a whole lot of harm getting it signed could do.

As a photograph guy and an autograph guy, I think the two should be kept separate.

If you have a high-quality original famous-photographer photo of Willie Mays or some celebrity (including modern) you don't want it autographed, especially in sharpie on the image. Those are two different genres, and you want the photo in its original state.

There are old photos-- cabinet cards, Hollywood portraits-- that are already signed, from back in the old days. But that's much different than getting a photo signed today.

I remember buying a Smokey Joe Wood signed photo. The seller didn't realize the original Conlon photo was much worth more than the signature itself. It was from the collection of old-time autograph collector Jeff Morey so was signed many years earlier.

For game-used bat collectors, some won't want them autographed or, if they are autographed, the autograph to be vintage. They don't want a 2015 Hank Aaron sharpie signature on a 1960s game-used bat. I know of collectors who remove authentic signatures from their game used bats. But tastes and practices vary amongst collectors.

Guess Willie's wife and secretary didnt mind signing them!

My old friend, Dr. Walt Brown (Not related to this topic but he is a leading Kennedy assassination expert) used to be a contrarian and get all the old cards signed instead of the 8 X 10's which were so prevalent.

His logic, which was proven correct, was to get those cards signed since no one else was doing that.

And no, I have no idea what, if any of the vintage signed cards he still has.

Rich

Worst trade I ever did not make was for a Zeenut DiMaggio signed in a blue Sharpie. I just could not stand how jarring that big blue signature was against the BW card.

D'Oh!

I waited a long time to find this one in pen:

https://live.staticflickr.com/4699/4...494d8098d6.jpg

I wouldn't get a game-used or game-worn anything signed.

To me it would destroy the "integrity" of the piece because it wasn't signed when it was actually used or worn in the game.

Rich, as a side note, I believe I have one of your friends Books on the Kennedy assassination, as I love reading all about it. I would have to agree with his logic though, to get the cards signed at least. From my perspective, I think if I was collecting back then, I would've probably tried to own two copies of cards. One signed, and one unsigned. That way I can have the best of both worlds! As to your second point, one can only wonder.

With the Game Worn items I would tend to agree, unless if the item in question was signed almost immediately after the game ended!