Your thoughts on signed HOF RCs

[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?