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

[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 Some people like letters with historical content.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.