Auto.HOF Players prior to 1990; MORE desirable; cards or 8x10

[cookie]

I was wondering the opinion of fellow collectors as to the most desirable between auto. HOF who retired before 1990.[Schmidt,Jackson,etc]; b.b cards or 8 x10,s. Also semi stars such as Colavito,Cash,Hodges, etc. and how much more would one be worth than the other ;card to 8 x10.

[thenavarro]

Generally, I'd say a sgned rookie card would be the best short and long term, BUT, I'm a signed rookie card fan.

Specific price differences are far too variable and rely on way too many factors to try and do any useful one size fits all value analysis.

[Huck]

The question I wish I had asked myself when this sickness started was "How am I going to display the collection?" Nail that question down first. Both 8x10 photos and cards can be displayed in binders. If the plan is to frame and display the photos that gets into the cost of framing and available wall space to display the collection.

Years ago, I purchased an oversized photograph of the baseball hall of fame from a fellow collector. I have hof players sign the piece. Such an item would have been great to have when first starting out.

I do wish I had started the Perez-Steele postcards much sooner.

I do know what I no longer will get signed - baseballs. Some signatures are as fresh as the day the ball was signed, while the signature on some balls have bled or just faded away.

Actually, none of this matters, because once the sickness starts, trust me, there is always another project.

[Jcfowler6]

My personal opinion I would rather have baseball cards. They are easier to store and I'm a card guy. There was always something about getting a card signed as a kid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Huck]

Since I entered the autograph side of the hobby from collecting cards, I was never a collector of signed cards. I do have some signed cards, mostly form the free guests that appeared at various shows attended but getting cards signed was never a serious pursuit. Although the price of some autographed cards prove otherwise, it was always my understanding that anything that defaced the card lowered the value of said card. If there is an ink mark or stamp the grading companies note the card as marked which hurts the overall grade and yet an autograph (authentic or not) is not considered a mark??? Also, I think signed cards is a niche market. I would assume there are far more collectors of clean cards then autographed cards. Pursuing signed cards pre-price point of $100 per signature for star players is one thing, but frankly I can't see paying $100 or more for a player to sign a card.

I do marvel at those who attempt or have complete sets of signed cards.

The beauty of any hobby is the various niches that exist. The collections of pennants, banks, trophies, and other collections on this site blow me away, but alas, I can't collect it all.