Maris Signed Dual Card - Add Another Sig or Keep It Single Signed?

[scmavl]

Some discussion started up on the June Pickups thread about this and I'm curious about others opinions. Would you have Frank Robinson sign it or leave it single signed? Remember, Frank's auto is not near as scarce as Maris and his signature quality has gone down drastically in the past few years.

Would having Frank add or take away value? Make it look better or perhaps worse?

Opinions? Thoughts?

[39special]

I would leave it as it is.Robinsons signature is really bad.The Maris is nice.
I think it would take away from the Maris.

[milkit1]

most definetly add robinson. I can't stand incompletes! I have a marx brothers photo signed only by chico whom died first and everyone I see it I think "why didnt the original owner get the others?!?!". you owe it to posterity

[jgmp123]

Although I love Maris, I would get Robinson. It would complete the card. Unless you were planning on framing the Maris as a cut, I would add Robinson.

[mr2686]

Well, first off I think both points that have been brought up are valid and normally I would be on the fence. However, I recently had Stan Musial sign a 3000 hit Sports Illustrated (the one when Aaron got his 3000 and his picture is surrounded by the other, at the time, 3000 hit members). Aaron's sig is perfect but Musial's sig is sooooo bad that it really bothers me. I mean, it is what it is, but if Robinson's sig is getting as bad as others have said, then I'd skip it...or at least prepare for what the possible outcome might be.

[travrosty]

if money is your motivator, keep it single signed.

if you want it complete, and think robinson makes the piece look nicer, then get robinson, but it will be worth more with just maris. thats just a fact.


babe ruth single signed ball is worth more than if you added hank aarons sig to it. if not, then people would be getting aaron, who is still alive, to sign their single signed ruth balls, but they aren't. it's subtraction by addition in some cases.

either way is fine though. it is perfectly fine to look at value over aesthetics or completeness, and also perfectly fine to do it the other way around.

[keithsky]

Jarrod, I have the same example with a 1959 Topps dual card with Nellie Fox and Luis Aparicio. The card has the Fox autograph on it encapsulated with PSA and I thought of breaking it open and putting Aparicio on it to so both have signed it but decided not to so I bought another one of the cards unsigned and got Aparicio to sign it and I'll put both cards in some kind of display.

[bender07]

Originally Posted by travrosty

if money is your motivator, keep it single signed.

if you want it complete, and think robinson makes the piece look nicer, then get robinson, but it will be worth more with just maris. thats just a fact.


babe ruth single signed ball is worth more than if you added hank aarons sig to it. if not, then people would be getting aaron, who is still alive, to sign their single signed ruth balls, but they aren't. it's subtraction by addition in some cases.

either way is fine though. it is perfectly fine to look at value over aesthetics or completeness, and also perfectly fine to do it the other way around.

Not sure if I agree with the Ruth ball analogy. Apples and oranges. With both guys pictured on the card, it's begging for both to sign it.

Interesting discussion...

Is Frank's autograph that bad? I saw him sign some stuff last year at the HOF induction and it looked fine.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Well, first off I think both points that have been brought up are valid and normally I would be on the fence. However, I recently had Stan Musial sign a 3000 hit Sports Illustrated (the one when Aaron got his 3000 and his picture is surrounded by the other, at the time, 3000 hit members). Aaron's sig is perfect but Musial's sig is sooooo bad that it really bothers me. I mean, it is what it is, but if Robinson's sig is getting as bad as others have said, then I'd skip it...or at least prepare for what the possible outcome might be.

Frank Robbie used to have one of the nicest, stylish sigs going, but here is what I believe is a current look at what his autograph looks like.

Perhaps this will help guide your decision...

[bender07]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Frank Robbie used to have one of the nicest, stylish sigs going, but here is what I believe is a current look at what his autograph looks like.

Perhaps this will help guide your decision...

Eeeeh, that does look rough. Too bad.