Whiy is an autograph on a card worth 10X

[UKCardGuy]

So here's a loaded question. Take vintage card worth $25 (probably mid-grade). The same players autograph on a photo mighbe worth $50. But when that same players autograph is on the vintage card, it is suddenly worth $750?

Csn someone please explain this to me because it just seems nuts.

[egri]

Set collectors have something to do with it. If I want a signed 8x10 of Willie Mays batting in a NY Giants uniform, there’s plenty out there that fit those criteria, and the prices reflect that. But if I’m building a 1957 Topps set, it has to be that one, I can’t use a different year or brand instead. So when one does come up, I need to bid accordingly, since it’s a very specific thing I’m after and I’m competing with every other set builder for it as well. There’s also a time crunch for players who died young; Harry Agganis signatures are relatively plentiful, as he had a successful career at BU before turning pro (there are several on eBay right now) but he only had a couple of months to sign his 1955 Topps card. A cut signature might go for several hundred dollars, while two copies of his Topps card sold this spring for $15,000 and $27,000.

[joejo20]

I really like the way a well placed bold signature on a card looks and would rather have a card signed than just about anything else. Not sure that makes it worth 10 times more though. Joe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrmopar]

egri hit it on the head as far as i am concerned, but also consider the volume of cards available unsigned vs the limited quantity available signed, with some cards being much more scarce (like the Agganis example).

Mantle signed a lot of stuff, but how many folks had him sign various vintage cards. Even fewer probably risked the mighty 52 Topps. Makes that card extremely expensive either way, but extremely rare signed.

I have always looked at it this way, if I am going to get a card signed, it's not going to be a reprint or a Pacific/Swell legends card, it is going to be the players best card I could afford.

[sreader3]

I collect autographed cards. I don’t collect autographs that are not on cards. The price I will pay for an autographed card is not tightly correlated to the difficulty of the player’s autograph. There are some autographed cards that are hard to find, even if the player’s autograph is not hard to find in general. I will use ‘72 Topps Duane Josephson as an example. Not a hard autograph to find, but a hard autograph to find on a ‘72 Topps. There are countless other examples.

[egri]

Every once in a while, someone will resurrect the Toughest Signed Cards Possible thread, and there’s plenty of guys in there who aren’t difficult to find signatures of, but are very difficult on specific cards, or even cards in general.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by egri

Every once in a while, someone will resurrect the Toughest Signed Cards Possible thread, and there’s plenty of guys in there who aren’t difficult to find signatures of, but are very difficult on specific cards, or even cards in general.

Agreed Scott. I echo your sentiment and your original post was more comprehensive than mine. I collect 72 Topps and signed examples of certain Series 5 and 6 guys are damn near impossible.

[packs]

The medium is always important. It's the difference between a store bought baseball and a game used one. Cards have a special place in the collector's heart. It's where we all start our habit. I prefer signed cards over everything else.

[packs]

double post

[egri]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Agreed Scott. I echo your sentiment and your original post was more comprehensive than mine. I collect 72 Topps and signed examples of certain Series 5 and 6 guys are damn near impossible.

Is a 1972 Topps Gil Hodges possible? I know there are a handful of 1971s out there, but I don’t remember seeing a 1972 off the top of my head.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by egri

Is a 1972 Topps Gil Hodges possible? I know there are a handful of 1971s out there, but I don’t remember seeing a 1972 off the top of my head.

Gil died April 2nd and his 1972 card was in the 4th series, seem improbable.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Gil died April 2nd and his 1972 card was in the 4th series, seem improbable.

The 1972 OPC counterpart even points out that he passed right on the front of the card.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by egri

Set collectors have something to do with it. If I want a signed 8x10 of Willie Mays batting in a NY Giants uniform, there’s plenty out there that fit those criteria, and the prices reflect that. But if I’m building a 1957 Topps set, it has to be that one, I can’t use a different year or brand instead. So when one does come up, I need to bid accordingly, since it’s a very specific thing I’m after and I’m competing with every other set builder for it as well. There’s also a time crunch for players who died young; Harry Agganis signatures are relatively plentiful, as he had a successful career at BU before turning pro (there are several on eBay right now) but he only had a couple of months to sign his 1955 Topps card. A cut signature might go for several hundred dollars, while two copies of his Topps card sold this spring for $15,000 and $27,000.

Thanks guys. I get that for some scenarios (e.g. Agganis 55T) the rarity commands a premium. But other times, it seems to me that there's a multiplier on an autographed card that sometimes defies logic.

I expected that autographed set collectors were a pretty niche group. But I've probably massively misunderstood the market.

Excepting the rarities like 55T Agganis, is there a general rule of thumb about the value of an autographed card vs an autographed photo?

[egri]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Thanks guys. I get that for some scenarios (e.g. Agganis 55T) the rarity commands a premium. But other times, it seems to me that there's a multiplier on an autographed card that sometimes defies logic.

I expected that autographed set collectors were a pretty niche group. But I've probably massively misunderstood the market.

Excepting the rarities like 55T Agganis, is there a general rule of thumb about the value of an autographed card vs an autographed photo?

I don't know if there is a rule for the ratio of the values of each, just that cards tend to outsell photos. Maybe one of the other members with experience selling can chime in with their opinion.

[big-six]

Every thread should have a card or two.

[Republicaninmass]

I always hated to look and storage of signed balls. 8x 10 photos dont have that vintage look. For a player to HAVE TOUCHED his own card, and the thought of the story that went along with it, is magic to me. Long before card shows, cards would have had to have been carried to the ball park with the luck to get it signed.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I always hated to look and storage of signed balls. 8x 10 photos dont have that vintage look. For a player to HAVE TOUCHED his own card, and the thought of the story that went along with it, is magic to me. Long before card shows, cards would have had to have been carried to the ball park with the luck to get it signed.

And, no two signed cards are exactly the same; signature placement, type of pen, ink color, even style of signature are always different. They're also created one at a time, not like the cards themselves that are churned out in a factory.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I always hated to look and storage of signed balls. 8x 10 photos dont have that vintage look. For a player to HAVE TOUCHED his own card, and the thought of the story that went along with it, is magic to me. Long before card shows, cards would have had to have been carried to the ball park with the luck to get it signed.

I think that's a great point. But i really like signed balls, especially baseballs that show their age. For the same reasons that you give.. .i like the thought that a kid at a ballpark getting a ball signed by his heroes. I prefer old multi-signed balls for that reason. Bright white balls autographed on the sweet spot in sharpie might grade well, but they're just a bit saccharine to me.

I have a feeling that most of the signed cards we see (even older vintage cards) were signed at a modern card show.

[packs]

How about another signed card for the thread. One of my all time favorites:

[Michael B]

I can understand trying to complete a set of signed cards. When I was an in person collector at the hotels in the 1980's and 1990's I was mostly an index card person and still am though now no sharpie, ballpoint pen only (mostly Cross pen). I had won the '83 Fleer baseball set in a raffle and did work on that. I did get about half the set done and they looked good. These days I may still get a few TTM when they are sent to my by Olympians, but I trade them off or give them away. For true Olympic collectors it is usually fan postcards or 4x6 photos. Ones like this one in fountain pen are great looking.

Pistulla,-Ernst-(1938)---1.jpg

Ernst Pistulla won a silver medal in boxing at the 1928 Olympics in Amsterdam. Lightweight champion of Germany. Killed in action on the Russian Front, September, 1944.

[Schlesinj]

I will add if not already mentioned in the scarcity point that from a collector standpoint back in the day they did not sign rookie cards or people did not want to ruin a card with a signature. That logic made a supply issue and now sediment has changed.

Frankly, I think that the modern world has helped flip this adjustment. With all inserts with signatures now the most valuable cards (due to forced scarcity) that it opened up the demand for vintage card autographs.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I always hated to look and storage of signed balls. 8x 10 photos dont have that vintage look. For a player to HAVE TOUCHED his own card, and the thought of the story that went along with it, is magic to me. Long before card shows, cards would have had to have been carried to the ball park with the luck to get it signed.

Agreed and nice cards.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by egri

And, no two signed cards are exactly the same; signature placement, type of pen, ink color, even style of signature are always different. They're also created one at a time, not like the cards themselves that are churned out in a factory.

This is a great point. Every signed card is unique and therefore fascinating to me.

I would only add that, unfortunately, the factors you cite also are also relevant to authenticity given the huge amount of fraud in our hobby.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

I will add if not already mentioned in the scarcity point that from a collector standpoint back in the day they did not sign rookie cards or people did not want to ruin a card with a signature. That logic made a supply issue and now sediment has changed.

I’m sure some people had rookie cards back in the day (hence the vintage signed rookie cards) and I believe the general consensus was not to ruin the cards (that was my thought at least) by getting them signed. There were so many other mediums that were more popular with collectors, i.e. balls, photos, index cards, bats, etc.

Since the logic changed, for the most part (including myself), now if you want a vintage signed card the supply is limited.

I really am a single player collector (Brooks Robinson) and about three years ago I started a side project to acquire all of his regular issue cards signed; this was due to someone showing their collection and their signed cards looked really cool. I figured I had a few in my collection from in the past, but only found one and it was rough. Anyway, if you know Brooks he signs “everything”, but finding nice vintage examples are tough. Also, as mentioned in the thread, some are light, different locations on the card, up, down, blue, black, sharpie, etc. (not all cards are the same w/an auto).

At least in my experience the signed cards are not 10x higher, but I have very narrow focus.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

I’m sure some people had rookie cards back in the day (hence the vintage signed rookie cards) and I believe the general consensus was not to ruin the cards (that was my thought at least) by getting them signed. There were so many other mediums that were more popular with collectors, i.e. balls, photos, index cards, bats, etc.

When I was first getting into the hobby around 2006, the first vintage card I bought was a 1949 Bowman Bobby Doerr. As I was paying for it, I was telling the LCS owner I planned to send it in to him to sign, and before I could finish the sentence he was shaking his head no. I eventually came around.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by egri

When I was first getting into the hobby around 2006, the first vintage card I bought was a 1949 Bowman Bobby Doerr. As I was paying for it, I was telling the LCS owner I planned to send it in to him to sign, and before I could finish the sentence he was shaking his head no. I eventually came around.

Scott,

A number of years ago I was just like the dealer; just say no to putting ink (or sharpie) on cards. Now I’m looking for better examples than what I currently have (really need to upgrade a few as well). On my spreadsheet for Brooks’ regular issue cards I have blue ballpoint, black ballpoint, blue sharpie and black sharpie (I really haven’t started the sharpie yet) to track what I have.

I am a tad weird though I’m not crazy about autographs on pictures since I feel it takes away from the shot itself. I have a few signed, but most of them of the common variety.

[Santo10Fan]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

Mantle signed a lot of stuff, but how many folks had him sign various vintage cards. Even fewer probably risked the mighty 52 Topps. Makes that card extremely expensive either way, but extremely rare signed.

I have always looked at it this way, if I am going to get a card signed, it's not going to be a reprint or a Pacific/Swell legends card, it is going to be the players best card I could afford.

This is an interesting point bc I remember as a child in the 1980's I was specifically told by my dealer uncle that autographs on rookie cards would count against overall condition. I probably should have sought more detail, but he gave me the impression that Mantle signing a 52 Topps would devalue it the same as if I had scribbled on it.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Santo10Fan

This is an interesting point bc I remember as a child in the 1980's I was specifically told by my dealer uncle that autographs on rookie cards would count against overall condition. I probably should have sought more detail, but he gave me the impression that Mantle signing a 52 Topps would devalue it the same as if I had scribbled on it.

Yes, an autograph on a vintage card was nothing more than an 'MK' qualifier now.

I remember back in 1986 I went to see Willie Mays at an outdoor show. Free autographs and there was no one in the line to see him. I had taken a book, SI, and a post-career insert card. Ended up also getting a dollar bill signed because he was just sitting there with no one in line. The thought of having him deface one of my playing years cards didn't even cross my mind. Dammit.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

I remember back in 1986 I went to see Willie Mays at an outdoor show. Free autographs and there was no one in the line to see him. I had taken a book, SI, and a post-career insert card. Ended up also getting a dollar bill signed because he was just sitting there with no one in line. The thought of having him deface one of my playing years cards didn't even cross my mind. Dammit.

Reminds me of a story I've told here before:

The mom of one of my HS track teammates was a professional photographer, and in the 1980s she was hired to cover a show with Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio. She spent the whole day at arms length from the two of them, making conversation, and at the end of the day they offered to sign as much stuff for her as she would like, for free. She said no, she didn't collect autographs.