![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Never have known the answer to this. Someone asked me the other day if the auto was a Sharpie or Ball Point. I guess from a preservation stand point. Would love opinions. I collect the 64 Topps Giants autograph set and most, nearly all, are ballpoint..just curious.
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
IMHO- I believe that this is completely a personal choice. Ball point or fountain pen are old school. Sharpie sigs are more common today.
FWIW- I guess I'm old school because I would always prefer the ink medium that is consistent with the era of the actual card. If I do have a card signed with Sharpie I prefer ultra fine point and usually black. ![]() I hope this helps! |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think that's a great answer... the pen should be consistent with the age of the card. So for pre-1950s, fountain pen would be best, 50s -70s perhaps ballpoint, and 80s - the present perhaps signed in sharpie.
It's just a personal preferance (and beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but I agree with Scott that this is what looks most attractive. Last edited by perezfan; 06-03-2010 at 08:52 PM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From a preservation standpoint I don't think it really matters. As someone who collects signed cards to use in team matted projects (60 pirates, 61 Yankees, etc) I think pen signatures have a better "feel" for the era. With that said, there are times that pen signatures just get lost in some of the darker areas of cards. As Scott said, the ultra finepoint sharpie looks really good on cards, but it's a personal preference thing. Here's a couple of examples of strong signatures on 1960 pirates cards. I think both look good, but if the Stuart had been signed in pen, it would not have stood out as nice.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I prefer the sharpie-type implement for modern signatures. Ballpoint pen isn't a great ink, especially vintage ballpoint. There is a significant fading problem even with appropriate light handling, and if you display, forget it. I had a nice Ryan-signed baseball that faded so far so fast that I had to take it down after a very short time. Sharpies aren't colorfast either but they seem to do a lot better when exposed to light than ballpoint does. Pencil doesn't look great but it seems to last forever--the pencing writing on the Exhibits I have is as sharp as the day the stupid kids scribbled it.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think it has to do with the overall composition/presentation of the item being signed. Here are a couple of my favorites, which are my favorites because of how well the signature presents on the card. The ink/pen complements the card in these cases:
Ball Points: ![]() ![]() Fountain Pens: ![]() ![]()
__________________
Galleries and Articles about T206 Player Autographs www.SignedT206.com www.instagram.com/signedT206/ @SignedT206 |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bad card sold by 4_sharp_corners | HBroll | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 12-18-2009 04:28 PM |
T206's for sale | WabitTwax | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 6 | 10-26-2009 09:56 AM |
The Mick,. The Prez and The Captain All On One Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 41 | 03-06-2007 05:28 PM |
A question regarding the Mastro trimmed card thread | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 42 | 10-02-2006 11:36 AM |
I realize that our opinions may differ regarding what constitutes a baseball card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 09-10-2006 01:42 PM |