Is full name autograph more rare?

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

John,
Allow me to answer in a different way.
I think you should collect what interests you, not what is rarer or perceived to be more valuable. Personally, I wouldn't pay a single cent more for a full name signature of modern players. I certainly wouldn't pay a significant premium for it. Why? Because I don't care what Mike Trout's full name is.
Would I pay more for a Henry Louis Gehrig as opposed to just a Lou? Yes, but how much would depend on other things, like what it's on, how clear it is, etc. Would I prefer a "Babe " Ruth or GH Ruth? Babe every day.
Now many on here have shown that they like the full signatures because they are more unique and/or different. I think that is a perfectly fine reason, but you asked about rarity and if it's worth more.
To me, you should collect what excites you and what you are passionate about. Collecting something because you perceive it to be worth more is setting oneself up for disappointment if it turns out not to be worth more.
Just my opinion.
Best,
Mark

We are talking about collectors of today. Of course I would love to have a Gerorge Herman Ruth. But for todays collectors that will be there history. I have always collected full name balls and did not pay extra. I think a Theodore Samuel Williams is great just like Joseph Paul Dimaggio. The plyars of today will be the stars they will remember. Are you telling me that if you owned a full name Rurth ball it would not be worth a fortune or Melvin Thomas Ott. I dont think that people thought to ask during that time.
I can tell you that for a fact full name balls sell for more than a regular ball. Just like roy balls mvp balls no hit balls. They all increase in value because people collect them. I had Pee Wee Reese sing the Kentucky Corne. Koufax signed it Sandford. What is wrong with have something a little different if they are willing to sign it. I do think you are correct when you have to pay fifty dollars for anything but a signiture.