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

[David Atkatz]

No, you are "missing the point." The point is a holograph item, is, in general, an historic artifact. As such, it should not be altered. Period.

The Ruth jersey was not cut up so that "more collectors could share." It was cut up so that Upper Deck would make more money. And it is a totally relevant analogy, as your first point was that the postcard would be worth more (i,e., sell for more) without the word "Nick."

I also collect historical autographs--what many purists would call "real" autograph collecting. (I don't call it that, so don't jump down my throat.) In that realm a simple signature is scorned. The real value is in an item's content and historical importance--letters with "good" content, and historically meaningful documents. Those letters are, of course, addressed to someone, and in almost every case it's someone other than the letter's current owner. In the past, many of these items have been destroyed by people's simply clipping off the signature to obtain "an autograph." Erasing a salutation is the same thing, differing only, perhaps, in degree, but not in kind.

When dealing with an artifact, the rule is "First, do no harm." No museum would consider for an instant the mutilation of a piece. Collectors have the same responsibility towards history.

And if the reference to the card's side almost anal compulsion with condition is beyond you, think a bit harder. You wouldn't dream of changing the condition of a card--any alteration is verboten; treat "autographs' the same way.

[HRBAKER]

No, my point was and is that I have never let the fact that something was personalized keep me from buying it, I have never considered altering it after I did and on rare occasions (such as the one above) havebought something that I would not have otherwise bought solely bc it was personalized.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

No, my point was and is that I have never let the fact that something was personalized keep me from buying it, I have never considered altering it after I did and on rare occasions (such as the one above) havebought something that I would not have otherwise bought solely bc it was personalized.

But you acknowledge that some people stay away from personalized things? And that it would not be surprising that you would have bought something solely because it was personalized if the personalization had your name, right?

Also, again, context is everything. There are about a million Gehrigs on ebay right now. So collectors can be a bit picky about holding out for a non-personalized example. But if there was a signed T206 on ebay personalized to someone, I'd buy it regardless for the same price because it is likely a 1 of 1.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The Ruth jersey was not cut up so that "more collectors could share." It was cut up so that Upper Deck would make more money.

There are many collectors who love it, which is why there was money in it. Profit was generated by the interest in sharing the jersey.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The real value is in an item's content and historical importance--letters with "good" content, and historically meaningful documents.

Absolutely. But that's a different kind of collector. Some people collect single signed, sweet spot balls, and would erase the non-sweet spot second signature. Some people like letters with historical content. Again, to each his own.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

When dealing with an artifact, the rule is "First, do no harm." No museum would consider for an instant the mutilation of a piece. Collectors have the same responsibility towards history.

You are ascribing a moral responsibility to collecting baseball artifacts. If that's your value system, more power to you. I more or less agree with you that "Nick" should not be erased. But I would totally understand and not pass judgment on the person who would.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

And if the reference to the card's side almost anal compulsion with condition is beyond you, think a bit harder. You wouldn't dream of changing the condition of a card--any alteration is verboten; treat "autographs' the same way.

In my post above (#31), I admitted erasing pencil from T206 cards. I do not think that is verboten. I understand some card purists do, but I don't. And both SGC and PSA will grade T206 cards with evidence of erasures. PSA will still give it an MK qualifier, which they would have done even if the pencil had not been erased; and SGC will just grade it an SGC 40 or lower.

And in any event, the reason it must have been "beyond me" is that your original post was not about card alteration, but instead a reference to corner damage, which I still think is irrelevant to this discussion.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

the reason it must have been "beyond me" is that your original post was not about card alteration, but instead a reference to corner damage, which I still think is irrelevant to this discussion.

It is relevant. Why are card guys upset at a bit of corner damage? What do they want? They want the cards to be exactly as they were when they left the factory--any deviation from that lowers the value in their world.

Well, I want a Gehrig autographed item, for example, to be exactly as it was when it left Gehrig's hand.

Just as you're not allowed to trim a card to produce perfect corners--making it (superficially) look "better," so, too, should you not be allowed to remove part of an autograph.

[perezfan]

Great points, and well articulated by both sides. It's an interesting debate, but ultimately there is no right or wrong! That's the beauty of this hobby... collect what you like

[J.McMurry]

ya'll seem to have blurred the "market difference" between modern and vintage autographs.
When buying modern autographs personalization is BAD.
when buying vintage sigs, it's ok(especially Ruths, gehrigs, cobbs, etc.)

It's not a hard and fast rule,but similar to the card market belief that,"prewar must be in a SGC holder, and post war in a PSA holder".

To each his own.

[Gary Dunaier]

I'm on the side of those who feel the personalization represents a few extra words in the player's hand. For those whose attitude is "it's something the player actually touched," personalization means the player touched it a little longer in order. Maybe just another second or two, but still...

As far as the whole pencil v. ink issue, ink seems more "permanent" than pencil, comments about pencil sigs not fading notwithstanding. In my mind there's always that possibility that a pencil autograph could be erased.

But I love the point Tom Hufford made about having to deal with a fountain pen, trying not to get ink leaking everywhere, that sort of thing, especially with crowds of excited kids surrounding you. We, with our modern Sharpies and Bics and other ink pens, don't have to deal with that concern, and since I, for one, have never really had to use a fountain pen, I just think of pens the way we use 'em now in 2010.