Why are pencil autographs from the pre-1950s era so disrespected by collectors?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

I've got quite a few signatures in pencil in my Olympic collection. This is especially true when dealing with signatures in scrapbooks or small pieces of paper on athletes prior to 1960. I think they look just fine. What's funny is that these might be frowned upon, yet people will get baseballs and index cards signed with sharpies and have no problem with it, and in ten years those autographs will look wretched.

If you believe that, then you should always carry a pencil with you when you are paying for your favorite players' autograph.

But for really old autographs you are usually getting what you see. That pencilled Lou Gehrig looks fantastic - especially compared to some of the crappy faded pen ones we see - but if I had my choice between pencil and ink, conditions being the same, I'm taking ink (except green ink on a non-Cobb).

That's just me, but I understand how some prefer pencil.