Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly
We are talking about collectors of today. Of course I would love to have a Gerorge Herman Ruth. But for todays collectors that will be there history. I have always collected full name balls and did not pay extra. I think a Theodore Samuel Williams is great just like Joseph Paul Dimaggio. The plyars of today will be the stars they will remember. Are you telling me that if you owned a full name Rurth ball it would not be worth a fortune or Melvin Thomas Ott. I dont think that people thought to ask during that time.
I can tell you that for a fact full name balls sell for more than a regular ball. Just like roy balls mvp balls no hit balls. They all increase in value because people collect them. I had Pee Wee Reese sing the Kentucky Corne. Koufax signed it Sandford. What is wrong with have something a little different if they are willing to sign it. I do think you are correct when you have to pay fifty dollars for anything but a signiture.
|
Shelly,
I think you missed my point. I am not saying that full signature balls aren't less common or don't sell for more. I certainly am not trying to minimize or trivialize what someone else collects.
My point is that buying something because it is rarer or more valuable as the main reason is speculating not collecting. My suggestion to John is buy what he likes, regardless of whether anyone else thinks it is rare or valuable.
Also your comparison of a SS full name Ruth or Ott ball isn't really equal to Mike Trout. Ruth, etc are deceased HOFers who completed their careers. Trout, God forbid, could break his leg tomorrow and never play again. His full name auto would then be worth the exact same as his regular sig....nothing. Why would I pay a significant premium for a full name in this instance? If you collect Mike Trout, or the Angels in general, then the ball will mean as much to you regardless of whether it's a full name or not. If you collect only full name signed balls, then buy the ball and forget the rarity/valuation.