No, you are "missing the point." The point is a holograph item, is, in general, an historic artifact. As such, it should not be altered. Period.
The Ruth jersey was not cut up so that "more collectors could share." It was cut up so that Upper Deck would make more money. And it is a totally relevant analogy, as your first point was that the postcard would be worth more (i,e., sell for more) without the word "Nick."
I also collect historical autographs--what many purists would call "real" autograph collecting. (I don't call it that, so don't jump down my throat.) In that realm a simple signature is scorned. The real value is in an item's content and historical importance--letters with "good" content, and historically meaningful documents. Those letters are, of course, addressed to someone, and in almost every case it's someone other than the letter's current owner. In the past, many of these items have been destroyed by people's simply clipping off the signature to obtain "an autograph." Erasing a salutation is the same thing, differing only, perhaps, in degree, but not in kind.
When dealing with an artifact, the rule is "First, do no harm." No museum would consider for an instant the mutilation of a piece. Collectors have the same responsibility towards history.
And if the reference to the card's side almost anal compulsion with condition is beyond you, think a bit harder. You wouldn't dream of changing the condition of a card--any alteration is verboten; treat "autographs' the same way.
|