Whiy is an autograph on a card worth 10X

[egri]

Set collectors have something to do with it. If I want a signed 8x10 of Willie Mays batting in a NY Giants uniform, there’s plenty out there that fit those criteria, and the prices reflect that. But if I’m building a 1957 Topps set, it has to be that one, I can’t use a different year or brand instead. So when one does come up, I need to bid accordingly, since it’s a very specific thing I’m after and I’m competing with every other set builder for it as well. There’s also a time crunch for players who died young; Harry Agganis signatures are relatively plentiful, as he had a successful career at BU before turning pro (there are several on eBay right now) but he only had a couple of months to sign his 1955 Topps card. A cut signature might go for several hundred dollars, while two copies of his Topps card sold this spring for $15,000 and $27,000.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by egri

Set collectors have something to do with it. If I want a signed 8x10 of Willie Mays batting in a NY Giants uniform, there’s plenty out there that fit those criteria, and the prices reflect that. But if I’m building a 1957 Topps set, it has to be that one, I can’t use a different year or brand instead. So when one does come up, I need to bid accordingly, since it’s a very specific thing I’m after and I’m competing with every other set builder for it as well. There’s also a time crunch for players who died young; Harry Agganis signatures are relatively plentiful, as he had a successful career at BU before turning pro (there are several on eBay right now) but he only had a couple of months to sign his 1955 Topps card. A cut signature might go for several hundred dollars, while two copies of his Topps card sold this spring for $15,000 and $27,000.

Thanks guys. I get that for some scenarios (e.g. Agganis 55T) the rarity commands a premium. But other times, it seems to me that there's a multiplier on an autographed card that sometimes defies logic.

I expected that autographed set collectors were a pretty niche group. But I've probably massively misunderstood the market.

Excepting the rarities like 55T Agganis, is there a general rule of thumb about the value of an autographed card vs an autographed photo?

[egri]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Thanks guys. I get that for some scenarios (e.g. Agganis 55T) the rarity commands a premium. But other times, it seems to me that there's a multiplier on an autographed card that sometimes defies logic.

I expected that autographed set collectors were a pretty niche group. But I've probably massively misunderstood the market.

Excepting the rarities like 55T Agganis, is there a general rule of thumb about the value of an autographed card vs an autographed photo?

I don't know if there is a rule for the ratio of the values of each, just that cards tend to outsell photos. Maybe one of the other members with experience selling can chime in with their opinion.

[big-six]

Every thread should have a card or two.

[Republicaninmass]

I always hated to look and storage of signed balls. 8x 10 photos dont have that vintage look. For a player to HAVE TOUCHED his own card, and the thought of the story that went along with it, is magic to me. Long before card shows, cards would have had to have been carried to the ball park with the luck to get it signed.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I always hated to look and storage of signed balls. 8x 10 photos dont have that vintage look. For a player to HAVE TOUCHED his own card, and the thought of the story that went along with it, is magic to me. Long before card shows, cards would have had to have been carried to the ball park with the luck to get it signed.

And, no two signed cards are exactly the same; signature placement, type of pen, ink color, even style of signature are always different. They're also created one at a time, not like the cards themselves that are churned out in a factory.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by egri

And, no two signed cards are exactly the same; signature placement, type of pen, ink color, even style of signature are always different. They're also created one at a time, not like the cards themselves that are churned out in a factory.

This is a great point. Every signed card is unique and therefore fascinating to me.

I would only add that, unfortunately, the factors you cite also are also relevant to authenticity given the huge amount of fraud in our hobby.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I always hated to look and storage of signed balls. 8x 10 photos dont have that vintage look. For a player to HAVE TOUCHED his own card, and the thought of the story that went along with it, is magic to me. Long before card shows, cards would have had to have been carried to the ball park with the luck to get it signed.

I think that's a great point. But i really like signed balls, especially baseballs that show their age. For the same reasons that you give.. .i like the thought that a kid at a ballpark getting a ball signed by his heroes. I prefer old multi-signed balls for that reason. Bright white balls autographed on the sweet spot in sharpie might grade well, but they're just a bit saccharine to me.

I have a feeling that most of the signed cards we see (even older vintage cards) were signed at a modern card show.

[packs]

How about another signed card for the thread. One of my all time favorites:

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I always hated to look and storage of signed balls. 8x 10 photos dont have that vintage look. For a player to HAVE TOUCHED his own card, and the thought of the story that went along with it, is magic to me. Long before card shows, cards would have had to have been carried to the ball park with the luck to get it signed.

Agreed and nice cards.