[Seven]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Steve D

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

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!"