Your thoughts on signed HOF RCs

[homerunhitter]

Hello,
What are your thoughts on collecting signed Topps HOF rookie cards (baseball)?

Do you collect them? (If you do let’s see some!)

Any tips for those that are starting out?

[theshleps]

Wasnt that long ago when signed rookie cards weren't that much more expensive that non rookie playing day cards. For players who debuted 1960 and up they are fairly plentiful except for Stargell. 1951-59 debut- some are resonable but some pretty pricey. Some like Musial didn't come out with a Topps card for quite sometime so there are questions like do you consider his 1959 topps a rookie. So in general post 1960 is easy. So many people got them signed so ones like carlton, perez bench are much easier to find than their 2nd year card. All comes down to what you want to collect. I do not think the post 1960 cards will be good investments if that is your motivation. Too many out there

[homerunhitter]

Thank you so much for your thoughts on this. I always appreciate your help. I noticed while looking on eBay tonight that HOF signed rookies while readily available are very expensive! Example: a David Ortiz signed PSA Topps rookie card is listed for over $600! That’s insane!

[dgo71]

To me it seems like one of those fads that will die out through the generations. Back in the 80s getting a pricey RC signed was taboo, and 8x10s were extremely popular. You can get photos for pennies on the dollar these days. The RC craze (which has extended to minor league issues as well, something I don't really get) gained a lot of steam during COVID but the prices shot up too dramatically, in my opinion, to really have any staying power. Add to the fact, more recent guys like Trout, Ohtani, Verlander, etc...their RCs will be in much shorter supply 10-20 years from now, considering they rarely do signings. In Trout's case, the last several signings he's done have had a "no card" policy. So while the post above mentioned 1960ish is the reasonable starting point, 2010ish might be a reasonable end point. I think once people realize the window for collecting HOF RCs is closing as quickly as it opened, it will lose some appeal, especially to younger collectors without as much disposable income. That's not to say there isn't a good amount of HOFers and potential HOFers for someone to collect in that 50-year span, but what will a signed Kaline RC be selling for in 10-20 years, and will anyone starting out be willing to pay that much for someone they genuinely don't know much about? As stated above though, it's about what you want to collect. Trying to collect as purely an investment is risky, but if you collect what you love, your collection will always have value to you. If that value happens to also be monetary down the road, consider that a bonus.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

There are of course some post-1960 multi-player RCs that are varying degrees of rare if you prefer a card that's fully signed by all depicted, as I do. The HOFer in question may not be difficult, but a lesser player who shares the card can sometimes be very vexing.

Then again, there are other people who only want the HOFer on the card. One that I don't understand in this case is the Koosman/Ryan. Some people prefer to have Ryan sign and write inscriptions dead center on a 2 player card. It looks wrong to me. Kooz is still alive! He's a great, affordable signer, and wasn't too shabby a pitcher in his own right, so to not have him properly complete the RC is sacrilege to me. It would make more sense if the second player was deceased, like on the Fergie or Carlton RCs. Still, I prefer players to "stick to their own real estate". Thankfully, most players usually do so on their own out of respect to the other player(s) on the card.

There's one multi player RC that doesn't bother me if the player signs dead center, and that's the Tony Perez. Perez is routinely careful about signing it so that he doesn't overly encroach on the two deceased players, but the card design itself features him at the top as the most prominent of the trio. Then again, dead center really is his allotted signing spot, if you will. This card has incredible colors, design and aesthetic and looks great signed dead center. It doesn't bother me as much that the other two guys can't sign it. It's a tremendously underrated card in my opinion.

[homerunhitter]

Thanks guys, I appreciate your thoughts on this.

You weren’t kidding about signed 8x10’s. I sent some HOF signed 8x10s which were PSA authenticated into a big time eBay consignor. Most sold for under $10! Are you kidding me? Under $10 for a signed and authenticated HOF 8x10? Im never buying signed photos again! They are a huge Rip off! (Just about no resale value)

You’re right about the future of signed HOF rookie cards. I mean who can afford a signed ohtani or trout rookie card? If they can even be found on eBay. (I’ve never seen a signed ohtani signed Topps rookie card).

Also a complete run of signed Hof Topps rookies will never truly be completed by most people because most of us can’t afford a signed Mantle, Mays and Robinson 1952 topps!

[Huck]

Originally Posted by dgo71

To me it seems like one of those fads that will die out through the generations. Back in the 80s getting a pricey RC signed was taboo, and 8x10s were extremely popular.

Agreed. In the early 80's when I reentered the hobby, defacing a card with a signature was a hobby niche. Any card with an added signature could never be considered mint. I marvel at those collectors who collect signed sets (ex. 1987 Topps) but personally, signed cards is just not my thing. I do have a dozen or so signed cards, only because I wanted the player sitting next to Brooks Robinson at a freebie event to have something to sign.

I do like certain autographed sets. I collect the 2000 Fleer Greats of the Game (FGOTG) autographed set (down to 2-3 cards). I am still on the fence whether the Jeter should be considered part of the set. This would have to be verified but the 2000 FGOTG may have the most on-card hof autographs of any set. I also like the look of 2005 UD SP legendary cuts sets. Due to the one of ones this set would be near impossible to complete.

[gonefishin]

I agree that Fleer Greats of the Game are the best-looking factory signed cards out there.

My second favorite would be the UD Legends in basketball.

This thread needs a picture, so here are a couple of mine.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by dgo71

To me it seems like one of those fads that will die out through the generations. Back in the 80s getting a pricey RC signed was taboo, and 8x10s were extremely popular. You can get photos for pennies on the dollar these days. The RC craze (which has extended to minor league issues as well, something I don't really get) gained a lot of steam during COVID but the prices shot up too dramatically, in my opinion, to really have any staying power. Add to the fact, more recent guys like Trout, Ohtani, Verlander, etc...their RCs will be in much shorter supply 10-20 years from now, considering they rarely do signings. In Trout's case, the last several signings he's done have had a "no card" policy. So while the post above mentioned 1960ish is the reasonable starting point, 2010ish might be a reasonable end point. I think once people realize the window for collecting HOF RCs is closing as quickly as it opened, it will lose some appeal, especially to younger collectors without as much disposable income. That's not to say there isn't a good amount of HOFers and potential HOFers for someone to collect in that 50-year span, but what will a signed Kaline RC be selling for in 10-20 years, and will anyone starting out be willing to pay that much for someone they genuinely don't know much about? As stated above though, it's about what you want to collect. Trying to collect as purely an investment is risky, but if you collect what you love, your collection will always have value to you. If that value happens to also be monetary down the road, consider that a bonus.

Originally Posted by Huck

Agreed. In the early 80's when I reentered the hobby, defacing a card with a signature was a hobby niche. Any card with an added signature could never be considered mint. I marvel at those collectors who collect signed sets (ex. 1987 Topps) but personally, signed cards is just not my thing. I do have a dozen or so signed cards, only because I wanted the player sitting next to Brooks Robinson at a freebie event to have something to sign.

I do like certain autographed sets. I collect the 2000 Fleer Greats of the Game (FGOTG) autographed set (down to 2-3 cards). I am still on the fence whether the Jeter should be considered part of the set. This would have to be verified but the 2000 FGOTG may have the most on-card hof autographs of any set. I also like the look of 2005 UD SP legendary cuts sets. Due to the one of ones this set would be near impossible to complete.

I'm curious (for both of you) why you think this will die out?

The modern card world has placed rookie autograph cards at the pinnacle of the hobby. Bowman Chrome has been pretty much the undisputed top set for rookie cards since then (although definitions of a rookie card now have them technically as pre-rookie cards since in most cases they are made before a player in a rookie in MLB), and they have had rookie autograph cards since 2001. For a huge percentage of players, their top rookie autograph cards (often in Bowman Chrome, but sometimes in other sets such as Topps Chrome) are considered their premier card.

Now, Topps is including the Debut game patch in cards, and this has almost certainly become the singular 'best' card a player can have. And those are signed.

Although hobby tastes can of course change, I feel like we are moving towards an era where it is accepted almost without question that a rookie autograph card represents one of, if not the best possible options available for collectors.

Additionally, @Huck - which 2000 Fleer Greats autos are you still looking for?

[Kzoo]

^ I agree, Jeff. I think vintage signed Rookie cards of the big, well known HOF'ers from the 1950's and earlier will always be desirable....20-30 years from now, every Tiger fan will hear the name 'Al Kaline' and know he was a Tiger Great. I think many MLB teams have done a great job at promoting their past legends into their current stadiums with displays, statues, and sections of the parks named after these guys. Just my 2 cents. I'm going to keep collecting them and love it!

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by theshleps

For players who debuted 1960 and up they are fairly plentiful except for Stargell..

This is true, as many are still signing or signed a ton of examples. The other major exception is Tom Seaver, as his 1967 Topps signed RC still demands as much or more than Stargell. I had the highest completed signed post-war Rookie card collection (including the Bowman's) on PSA's set registry a couple years ago at near 90%, but I got bored with trying to fill the needed spots and only added maybe 1 new addition a year. Trying to add some of the really rare examples like Newhouser, Jackie R., and Roberto C. were not cost effective towards completion. Instead I decided to keep my rare signed RC's and sell all the common ones. I now just look for cool, vintage signed cards and feel that I've had 'the handcuffs' taken off for adding to my collection. Collect what you like, it's more fun!

[theshleps]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

This is true, as many are still signing or signed a ton of examples. The other major exception is Tom Seaver, as his 1967 Topps signed RC still demands as much or more than Stargell. I had the highest completed signed post-war Rookie card collection (including the Bowman's) on PSA's set registry a couple years ago at near 90%, but I got bored with trying to fill the needed spots and only added maybe 1 new addition a year. Trying to add some of the really rare examples like Newhouser, Jackie R., and Roberto C. were not cost effective towards completion. Instead I decided to keep my rare signed RC's and sell all the common ones. I now just look for cool, vintage signed cards and feel that I've had 'the handcuffs' taken off for adding to my collection. Collect what you like, it's more fun!

I've been looking for a Newhouser (Leaf) for many years. Only have seen one and missed it

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by theshleps

I've been looking for a Newhouser (Leaf) for many years. Only have seen one and missed it

It's crazy! There's only 2, I believe, in the PSA Pop. Granted, the card is an SP, but the signature is very common. Somehow, the combination almost doesn't exist. Some other much easier combinations like the '84 Fleer Puckett or the '97 Chrome Halladay are rarities, as well.

[homerunhitter]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

This is true, as many are still signing or signed a ton of examples. The other major exception is Tom Seaver, as his 1967 Topps signed RC still demands as much or more than Stargell. I had the highest completed signed post-war Rookie card collection (including the Bowman's) on PSA's set registry a couple years ago at near 90%, but I got bored with trying to fill the needed spots and only added maybe 1 new addition a year. Trying to add some of the really rare examples like Newhouser, Jackie R., and Roberto C. were not cost effective towards completion. Instead I decided to keep my rare signed RC's and sell all the common ones. I now just look for cool, vintage signed cards and feel that I've had 'the handcuffs' taken off for adding to my collection. Collect what you like, it's more fun!

This is exactly the direction im heading in. Building a collection that doesn’t have a strict checklist and just adding cool cards that I like (with the HOF Topps rookie cards as a goal but not a total all out adherence to the checklist) I think when the handcuffs are off (being able to collect whatever you like) make collecting better.