Is full name autograph more rare?

[dapro]

I noticed from time to time ball players will sign with their full name like Mickey Charles Mantle. Are those signed with full name is consider rare and worth more?
I just saw an ebay auction with Mike Trout signed as Michael Nelson Trout, but the seller has a high price on it. If its rare, I might just get it.

Thanks

[shelly]

By far. Mickey Charels Mantle is 1200 to 1550. Most players today cant do it. It takes a lot of practice.Theadore Samuel Williams another 1200 ball. Full name is the only way to go if they will sign that way. Just think. Ten thousand Mantles and one full name.

[Clark7781]

I agree that full name autographs are rare, especially for players no longer with us. A few years ago I asked Whitey Ford to sign a ball for me with "Edward Charles 'Whitey' Ford." I also have a "Gary Edmund Carter" ball in my collection.

[cjedmonton]

Thankfully, The Chairman of the Board is still with us:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Ford

[thecatspajamas]

I can only imagine that most of today's players would have difficulty even signing their full name in the first place. They're so used to crapping out those "glyphs" they call signatures, and now they have to somehow insert their middle name in there? Seems like it would completely change things up for most of them, and I would bet that more than a few would flat out refuse rather than go to the extra trouble. Old-time players or those with signatures that are actually legible might be more amenable since it wouldn't require them to somehow alter that "logo" they call a signature.

Then again, they could just as easily add another squiggle and say, "There you go, now that's my full name," and who could say otherwise?

[dapro]

Cool, just added a full name autographed baseball to my collection. It is just something different.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by dapro

I noticed from time to time ball players will sign with their full name like Mickey Charles Mantle. Are those signed with full name is consider rare and worth more?
I just saw an ebay auction with Mike Trout signed as Michael Nelson Trout, but the seller has a high price on it. If its rare, I might just get it.

Thanks

Go get Trout in person and have him do that. Why spend $350+ on a ball you can get yourself.

And yes, full names worth significantly more, I would rather have a full name myself.

Here's my Mantle, I believe it may be the only full name signed card of Mantle in existence.

[shelly]

lanc, I had a signing with Carew. He tried it about a dozen times and it never came out rigt. Killebrew could do it better than anyone. Ralph Kiner sam thing. Some guys are naturals the others just give up.Koufax is fun because it is only Sandford. Early Wynn is just Early Wynn. The one I had the best fun with was Theadore Bernard Kluszewski. We did it on a soft ball. Pete Rose does it all the time. If you ask them to do it the first time they are like in shock.

[Big Six]

Originally Posted by shelly

lanc, I had a signing with Carew. He tried it about a dozen times and it never came out rigt. Killebrew could do it better than anyone. Ralph Kiner sam thing. Some guys are naturals the others just give up.Koufax is fun because it is only Sandford. Early Wynn is just Early Wynn. The one I had the best fun with was Theadore Bernard Kluszewski. We did it on a soft ball. Pete Rose does it all the time. If you ask them to do it the first time they are like in shock.

That's funny about Carew, Shelly. I asked him to do full name and he looked at me and said he wasn't able to pull that off...even apologized! Had good luck with Bunning, Ford, Kell and Mattingly. It's a great way to take a common sig and make it unique...seriously, how many George Clyde Kell autographs do you have in your collection?!?

[thecatspajamas]

Funny stuff, Shelly. Actually, I shouldn't be too critical, considering my own experience when buying our house. The only thing that I ever write in cursive these days is my own signature, and just my middle and last name at that. I was caught by surprise when I had to sign my full name on the contract documents, and had to stop, think about it, and slowly form each letter of my first name before dashing off my usual signature to finish out. I was getting better by the time I got to the last required signature, but most looked like a third grader had come along and signed my first name with his left hand beside each of my regular signatures

[dapro]

Maybe I am one of a few that actually signed my signature with a full name on all my documents. haha

[Michael B]

On the same topic, but not baseball; I did a similar thing with Bobby Orr about 25 years ago. I do legal research in property law so I view a lot of deeds, mortgages and the such with legal signatures. I also look up home addresses by searching for the deeds. Anyway, Bobby Orr was doing an appearance when that life size statue of him was on public display. I asked him to sign as he would if he was signing a mortgage. He signed Robert G. Orr. I was possibly the first person to ever ask him as everyone wanted to buy it once they saw it.

Just a note regarding those legal documents. You are not required to sign your first middle and last name if that is not what you use. Many of these documents require your signature and if that does not include your middle name or initial, or first name in the case of Lance, then you do not have to sign that way. There is always the option to add the clause 'who signs as' in any granting clause. This is from 25+ years of doing this work. I have a middle name, but do not use it. It is on my passport and drivers license, but the signature is first and last name only. I also take title to real property using first and last only and not the middle initial. I have had documents redrafted if they include my middle initial.

[earlywynnfan]

I believe Cal wins this conversation! Another cool auto to get is if they used an alias. Of course, I think only old-timers have done this.

Ken

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by dapro

I noticed from time to time ball players will sign with their full name like Mickey Charles Mantle. Are those signed with full name is consider rare and worth more?
I just saw an ebay auction with Mike Trout signed as Michael Nelson Trout, but the seller has a high price on it. If its rare, I might just get it.

Thanks

John,
Allow me to answer in a different way.
I think you should collect what interests you, not what is rarer or perceived to be more valuable. Personally, I wouldn't pay a single cent more for a full name signature of modern players. I certainly wouldn't pay a significant premium for it. Why? Because I don't care what Mike Trout's full name is.
Would I pay more for a Henry Louis Gehrig as opposed to just a Lou? Yes, but how much would depend on other things, like what it's on, how clear it is, etc. Would I prefer a "Babe " Ruth or GH Ruth? Babe every day.
Now many on here have shown that they like the full signatures because they are more unique and/or different. I think that is a perfectly fine reason, but you asked about rarity and if it's worth more.
To me, you should collect what excites you and what you are passionate about. Collecting something because you perceive it to be worth more is setting oneself up for disappointment if it turns out not to be worth more.
Just my opinion.
Best,
Mark

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

John,
Allow me to answer in a different way.
I think you should collect what interests you, not what is rarer or perceived to be more valuable. Personally, I wouldn't pay a single cent more for a full name signature of modern players. I certainly wouldn't pay a significant premium for it. Why? Because I don't care what Mike Trout's full name is.
Would I pay more for a Henry Louis Gehrig as opposed to just a Lou? Yes, but how much would depend on other things, like what it's on, how clear it is, etc. Would I prefer a "Babe " Ruth or GH Ruth? Babe every day.
Now many on here have shown that they like the full signatures because they are more unique and/or different. I think that is a perfectly fine reason, but you asked about rarity and if it's worth more.
To me, you should collect what excites you and what you are passionate about. Collecting something because you perceive it to be worth more is setting oneself up for disappointment if it turns out not to be worth more.
Just my opinion.
Best,
Mark

+1

[jimjim]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

John,
Allow me to answer in a different way.
I think you should collect what interests you, not what is rarer or perceived to be more valuable. Personally, I wouldn't pay a single cent more for a full name signature of modern players. I certainly wouldn't pay a significant premium for it. Why? Because I don't care what Mike Trout's full name is.
Would I pay more for a Henry Louis Gehrig as opposed to just a Lou? Yes, but how much would depend on other things, like what it's on, how clear it is, etc. Would I prefer a "Babe " Ruth or GH Ruth? Babe every day.
Now many on here have shown that they like the full signatures because they are more unique and/or different. I think that is a perfectly fine reason, but you asked about rarity and if it's worth more.
To me, you should collect what excites you and what you are passionate about. Collecting something because you perceive it to be worth more is setting oneself up for disappointment if it turns out not to be worth more.
Just my opinion.
Best,
Mark

+2

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

John,
Allow me to answer in a different way.
I think you should collect what interests you, not what is rarer or perceived to be more valuable. Personally, I wouldn't pay a single cent more for a full name signature of modern players. I certainly wouldn't pay a significant premium for it. Why? Because I don't care what Mike Trout's full name is.
Would I pay more for a Henry Louis Gehrig as opposed to just a Lou? Yes, but how much would depend on other things, like what it's on, how clear it is, etc. Would I prefer a "Babe " Ruth or GH Ruth? Babe every day.
Now many on here have shown that they like the full signatures because they are more unique and/or different. I think that is a perfectly fine reason, but you asked about rarity and if it's worth more.
To me, you should collect what excites you and what you are passionate about. Collecting something because you perceive it to be worth more is setting oneself up for disappointment if it turns out not to be worth more.
Just my opinion.
Best,
Mark

Amen, brother.

Which would you rather have? A playing-days ballpoint "Mickey Mantle," or a Sharpie, autograph-show-signed "Mickey Charles Mantle"?

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

John,
Allow me to answer in a different way.
I think you should collect what interests you, not what is rarer or perceived to be more valuable. Personally, I wouldn't pay a single cent more for a full name signature of modern players. I certainly wouldn't pay a significant premium for it. Why? Because I don't care what Mike Trout's full name is.
Would I pay more for a Henry Louis Gehrig as opposed to just a Lou? Yes, but how much would depend on other things, like what it's on, how clear it is, etc. Would I prefer a "Babe " Ruth or GH Ruth? Babe every day.
Now many on here have shown that they like the full signatures because they are more unique and/or different. I think that is a perfectly fine reason, but you asked about rarity and if it's worth more.
To me, you should collect what excites you and what you are passionate about. Collecting something because you perceive it to be worth more is setting oneself up for disappointment if it turns out not to be worth more.
Just my opinion.
Best,
Mark

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.

[Lordstan]

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.

[1880nonsports]

I never heard Pee Wee Reese sing :-(

[shelly]

Mark, . I would go for full name if it did not cost more. I had every player sign there full name the only one that turned me down was Ken Griffey Jr. I liked the fact that it was a little bit different. If I had a chance to ask any one that played it would be will you sign your full name. I also said how about the people that pay fifty for a hundred dollars just to have ROY,MVP and so on. I think they are crazy but look at priceing today. If guy like Ruth and Ott where alive today you dont think they would charge the same. I think it was about fifteen years or more ago I bid on full name Gehrig check. It went for over $14,000 I have no idea what it would sell for today. Yes Trout could break a leg who cares? Why does a Gehirg ball sell for so much? He did not sign. So if you had a full name Gehrig ball it would sell for five hundred thousand or more. Why because you have never seen one in your life or Mel Ott or Ruth. I am just saying if it does not cost more go for it. If you remember Joe D never signed and the money came rolling in. Now look at what is worth today. If You had a Joseph Paul Dimaggiio ball
joed.jpg

No I have never heard Pee Wee Resse sing but if it is anything like Pee Wee Herman I would shut it off.

[dapro]

wow, shelly. I never seen that Joe D full name before. Quite rare and interesting. I ended up not paying $349 for the full name trout. It is cool and stuff, but not worth 3 times what a normal Trout signature goes for.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by shelly

I think it was about fifteen years or more ago I bid on full name Gehrig check. It went for over $14,000 I have no idea what it would sell for today. Yes Trout could break a leg who cares? Why does a Gehirg ball sell for so much? He did not sign. So if you had a full name Gehrig ball it would sell for five hundred thousand or more.

Nonsense, IMHO.

Gehrig's checks are expensive because they are rare, not because they are signed with his full, legal name. His contracts are quite expensive as well, and most are also signed "Henry Louis Gehrig." Do you think that's the reason they are valuable?

Legal documents should be--and usually are--signed with a player's legal name. Baseballs, I believe, should be signed with the name he played under. At least I, for one, prefer it that way.

I much prefer my "Babe Ruth" baseball to my "GH Ruth" check.

I don't like "created purely for collection" collectibles. I don't need--or want--to have every signed ball made unique in some way--by writing "ROY," or "HOF," or the player's middle name, or even, in the case of our beloved NY Yankee center fielder, "Fuck You."

"Mickey Mantle" will do just fine, thank you very much.

BTW, here's one he signed for me outside the Yankee Stadium player's entrance in 1966:

[GKreindler]

David, that ball is bad@$$. I'm hoping it has a pretty good memory to go along with it?

Graig

[David Atkatz]

A great memory, Graig. I posted the story a while back--I'll try to find it.

[Lordstan]

Shelly,
Again, I think you are misinterpreting my thoughts.
I'm not saying there isn't a market for full name or ROY or HOF or stat inscribed balls. I'm not saying that the prices might be higher for these balls.

What I am trying to communicate is this
1) I personally couldn't care about a current player full name signed ball. I certainly wouldn't pay any more for one. I might not even buy one at all because I think they look a little weird to me.
2) I think people should buy what they like and are passionate about without regard to whether or not someone else thinks it's cool, rare, or valuable. If you, and everyone else like you, prefer full name signed items...Great. I hope you all enjoy them as part of your collection. (As communicating on the internet comes without you seeing my face or hearing the inflection in my voice, I want to be clear, that I mean that, fully and honestly, without any sarcasm at all.)


As a separate discussion, I'm not sure I fully agree with your rationale regarding some of your conclusions. Using some of your examples, I think a ball signed "Larrupin" or "The Iron Horse" or "Biscuit Pants" Lou Gehrig would sell for multiples of a full name signed one. I think a "Master Melvin" Mel Ott would do the same. As the singular ultimate example, I think a "Sultan of Swat" Ruth signed item's final price, ball or otherwise, would likely sell for more money than any sports autographed item has ever sold for. To use your more current example, I would much prefer a "Joltin Joe" or "Yankee Clipper" to a full name JP Dimaggio. I think this would apply to any player, current or older, because, as David stated, these nicknames relate to the way the player was identified within the game. I believe, items signed "Poosh'em up", Hammerin", "The Old Professor", "The Lip", "Terrific", "The Sey Hey Kid", "The Georgia Peach", "Rajah", and on and on, would all sell for more than a full name signed similar item.

None of this changes my #2 above. Forget about rarity or market value, collect what you enjoy. That is why I collect what I do.

Best to all,
Mark

[shelly]

Mark, no problem I get caught up in my own feelings. By the way here is your wish.

j2.jpg

[Lordstan]

Shelly,
I know how that is. Happens to me all the time with this stuff.


That ball is SWEET! Can you make the picture bigger?

Mark

[shelly]

jd4.jpg $600

[Lordstan]

Very nice Shelly. Not something i'm in the market for right now.

[toyman55]

I don't make it a priority to collect full name autographs but here are some I did buy or get.

[RichardSimon]

Here is a nice vintage one.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Which would you rather have? A playing-days ballpoint "Mickey Mantle," or a Sharpie, autograph-show-signed "Mickey Charles Mantle"?

Why can't I have both?

[David Atkatz]

Why would you want both?

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Why would you want both?

The same reason you have more than one Ruth and Gehrig.

[dapro]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Why would you want both?

Because we are collectors.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by toyman55

I don't make it a priority to collect full name autographs but here are some I did buy or get.

By the way, Jim Catfish Hunter is not his full name and that's how he pretty much signed everything. His full name would be James Augustus Hunter.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by dapro

Because we are collectors.

Collectors are discriminating. "Acquirers" pick up one (or more) of everything.

[mcgwirecom]

Robert William Andrew Feller. I've seen him sign one middle name but not both.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Collectors are discriminating.

I don't discriminate. I collect all players regardless of their race.

[Big Six]

For some of the more common autographs out there, getting a full name can be a nice change...