Signed Back In The Day: More Desirable?

[Exhibitman]

I've always felt that items signed 'back in the day' during a player's career are more interesting to own and should sell for a premium over those signed after a player retires. When I've gone after autographs of (especially) postwar players I often gravitate to team issues, McCarthy PCs, RPPCs, and so on that were signed and postmarked during the player's career.




I was just curious whether others think of it as I do.

Your views on it?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Yes, not even close


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RelicSports]

Agreed. Love the earlier/playing days signatures over modern day/post career

[David Atkatz]

Absolutely. Vintage rules.

[Shoeless Moe]

I'm partial toward after they've died, aka Coaches Corner.

[Scott Garner]

Collecting vintage is absolutely what it's all about!

[daves_resale_shop]

I'd much prefer a playing days signature over a modern day version, and in many cases would pay a premium...it's very neat to see the evolution of a players signature as the demand for it increases...

[HOF Auto Rookies]

I'll also ask you this, you tell me? Here's an example of both.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1454896310.785774.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David Atkatz]

God, I hate Sharpie!

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

God, I hate Sharpie!

Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thetruthisoutthere]

My Yaz.



Yaz-1.jpg

[earlywynnfan]

God, I hate PSA and JSA stickers on the front of photos!

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

I'll also ask you this, you tell me? Here's an example of both.

Attachment 220520


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMHO, this is a great example of the old saying, "Leave well enough, alone".
I personally would prefer to have left the vintage signed rookie exactly the way it was with a ball point early sig...

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

IMHO, this is a great example of the old saying, "Leave well enough, alone".

I personally would prefer to have left the vintage signed rookie exactly the way it was with a ball point early sig...

Me too, I just bought it a year ago with both signatures already on it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[begsu1013]

not a rookie, but here's my example of modern vs period:

[Runscott]

Great Mantle example, but the trifecta would be if he had lived into the 21st century and developed an unreadable glyph.

[Mr. Zipper]

While I generally agree vintage tends to be more desirable everything else being equal, but there are other key factors such as medium, condition and signature quality.

A vintage Mantle would be great, but if it's a scribbled signature on a stained scrap of a menu, I'd prefer a later era signed photo in pristine condition. While I understand some collectors like the gathered-in-the-wild and aged look of old ad hoc items and feel it adds to the charm, it's not my cup of tea.

[mrmopar]

I personally would rather have the Yaz sharpie signature over the pen signature on the card with both. The ink signature just looks to be of lesser quality, like the pen skipped or maybe the glossiness of the card prevented a smooth signature. A better ink signature and maybe I sway the other way, but the early signature looks so juvenile.

[Lordstan]

If everything is equal, signature quality, medium quality, placement of sig, etc, I would prefer a vintage signed item, but to me the most difficult thing to decide is how much more I would be willing to pay. It would be more, but probably less than twice the price of the newer sig. The exceptions would probably be a rookie year signed rookie card.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

A vintage Mantle would be great, but if it's a scribbled signature on a stained scrap of a menu, I'd prefer a later era signed photo in pristine condition. While I understand some collectors like the gathered-in-the-wild and aged look of old ad hoc items and feel it adds to the charm, it's not my cup of tea.

It's amazing how many of those are available - you would think Mantle spent all his free time standing outside diners.

[packs]

I don't have a preference re: vintage vs. modern so much as I HATE sharpie sigs. For a lot of vintage players there are no sharpie sigs. But for the guys who lived later it can be really challenging finding a nice ink signature. I waited forever to find this Maris. You can find a thousand of them in blue sharpie, but it's a lot harder to find the ink:

[btcarfagno]

If the item media is similar, and in similar condition, I will take the vintage signature 100% of the time. Especially if it is a playing career signature.

When you are talking about players from the 1950's and back who lived into the 1980's (at least), playing career signatures, especially singles, are simply much scarcer than latter day autographs.

They may not be as aesthetically pleasing sometimes, but I will always pay a premium for a nice vintage signature as opposed to a nice recently signed item.

Tom C

[Johnny630]

My favorite Maris Auto

[Runscott]

'69 Mets - 1969 vs Reunion ball

This is kind of fun

Period '69 Mets: https://goldinauctions.com/lot-2556.aspx

Reunion '69 Mets: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...12.html#photos

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Runscott

'69 Mets - 1969 vs Reunion ball

Period '69 Mets: https://goldinauctions.com/lot-2556.aspx

Reunion '69 Mets: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...12.html#photos

I'm surprised the reunion ball went as high as $812. Seems overpriced compared to the vintage ball that went for $1,422.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

I'm surprised the reunion ball went as high as $812. Seems overpriced compared to the vintage ball that went for $1,422.

I also saw a mid-80s reunion ball. I didn't note the price, but the signatures were very close to those on the '69 ball.

I love my old balls.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

I'm surprised the reunion ball went as high as $812. Seems overpriced compared to the vintage ball that went for $1,422.

One thing that was conveniently omitted in the description of the 1969 Mets vintage ball is that the Nolan Ryan signature was added much later (post 1987). His 1969 era signature is considerably different, FWIW.

Take a look for yourself:
The 1st ball was signed by Nolan circa 1969; the 2nd ball is the vintage 1969 team ball sold in the auction referenced ^. A pretty obvious difference to anyone that knows Nolan's signature...
Gary Gentry also appears to be added later as his autograph crosses over Nolan's modern era signature.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I've always felt that items signed 'back in the day' during a player's career are more interesting to own and should sell for a premium over those signed after a player retires. When I've gone after autographs of (especially) postwar players I often gravitate to team issues, McCarthy PCs, RPPCs, and so on that were signed and postmarked during the player's career.

I was just curious whether others think of it as I do. Your views on it?

I'm with you; I like the items that were signed "back in the day" more than the modern counterparts. Some of my favorite items are the ones that are postmarked so you know the date it was mailed. Now, I do collect some of the modern signatures, often in sharpie, but prefer the ink/pen signatures of the past.

[obxhouses4rent]

I have owned alot of cards signed over 35 years ago, almost all in blue sharpie.
properly stored, I defy anyone to be able to tell if they were not signed last week or 35 years ago. Sharpe holds up very well. Some ball points do not.

I would hate to have signed cards in ball point that after 35 years they look lke they were signed in 1930's (fading). Some are now rather rare signatures, but still look great!! (my 2 cents) JJ

[w7imel]

Originally Posted by obxhouses4rent

I have owned alot of cards signed over 35 years ago, almost all in blue sharpie.
properly stored, I defy anyone to be able to tell if they were not signed last week or 35 years ago. Sharpe holds up very well. Some ball points do not.

I would hate to have signed cards in ball point that after 35 years they look lke they were signed in 1930's (fading). Some are now rather rare signatures, but still look great!! (my 2 cents) JJ

Funny you mentioned that...I had a basball signed in early 90's by Roger Penske, Al Unser JR and Emmeroson Fitapladdi that was signed in black sharpie, last week I had same ball signed on last side panel by Castroneves in black sharpie and it looks like the ball was signed by all at the same time...