To have memorabilia signed or not

[jerseygary]

I collect odds and ends like scorecards and other vintage ephemera and I can't tell you how many pieces I really wanted were in my opinion ruined by someone getting a player to sign it in sharpie pen. When that happens I pass on buying it. I have many period signed programs and such, but when a modern collector gets a vintage item signed in that darn blue sharpie I just want to scream!

[Nashvol]

Thanks for everyone's suggestions, but what about vintage baseballs? For example, a few years ago I purchased a dozen Southern Association (defunct since 1961) baseballs, and I have had several former players autograph one. Harmon Killebrew even signed one with "Chattanooga Lookouts, 1957 - 1958". It is one of my treasures!

[perezfan]

Definitely go with whatever makes you happiest. I see nothing wrong with players signing vintage balls (as long as they use ballpoint pen vs. sharpie). And try to save the same pen for all sigs that will appear on the ball. Uniformity of ink looks best, IMO.

With regard to uniforms, signatures done on flannel look horrible in my opinion. They bleed and rarely take well to the material. Plus, they corrupt the item and usually clash with the vintage look and feel. I don't mind signatures on knits nearly as much, but still believe in keeping game-used clothing unsigned. Just my .02....

[BigJJ]

I would go with having a signed note from the player as well.

I agree that signatures don't look good on vintage jerseys - and that signatures really have nothing to do with a game worn jersey. If the signature is somewhat contemporaneous with the wearing of the jersey, then I guess maybe it's not an awful idea, especially if the player wants to note that he wore the jersey during a special game 'my 50th home run jersey' or such, but unless contemporaneous AND with a special game notation, I wouldn't add a signature.

Also, signing a piece of paper, instead of the actual jersey, allows for a correctable error.