Your Opinion- Does an Auto Cover Enhance or Decrease the Value of a Publication?

[ibuysportsephemera]

The autographed cover of the first edition of Sports Illustrated in the current Birmingham Auction (https://birminghamauctioneersbid.com...ce?itemid=1859) got me thinking. Do you think that because Eddie Matthews autographed the cover it is more valuable or less valuable? I personally think that the value is not increased and maybe even slightly decreased. Thoughts?


Jeff


*Disclaimer...I do work sometimes with Scott from Birmingham Auctions.

[packs]

It'll always depend on the person. The question comes up a lot re: vintage photos and whether the subject should sign them. Some people are photo guys and not auto guys; same goes for magazines and whether they'd want them autographed or not.

[perezfan]

Agree...

The answer depends upon a few things...

A. Who signed it, and how rare/valuable is the signature?
B. What is the nature of the item, and value of the item prior to its being signed?
C. Does the signature enhance or detract from the aesthetics and overall appearance of the item?

In your case, I think it could go either way. Matthews is not a rare signature, so there is no clear-cut answer. It just depends upon whether the purchaser prefers it autographed or not. Since Matthews is deceased, I would personally prefer the autographed version. He has a nice signature, and is featured on the cover.

But a Magazine/Periodical "purist" might not touch the autographed version. So I think your example can easily go either way.

[icollectDCsports]

I don't know what the consensus of collectors of that particular item would be, but I don't really like the look (placement, color, etc.) of that auto.

[hcv123]

I would say it is worth more to a smaller collecting base.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

The Magazine in question: