Is full name autograph more rare?

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

John,
Allow me to answer in a different way.
I think you should collect what interests you, not what is rarer or perceived to be more valuable. Personally, I wouldn't pay a single cent more for a full name signature of modern players. I certainly wouldn't pay a significant premium for it. Why? Because I don't care what Mike Trout's full name is.
Would I pay more for a Henry Louis Gehrig as opposed to just a Lou? Yes, but how much would depend on other things, like what it's on, how clear it is, etc. Would I prefer a "Babe " Ruth or GH Ruth? Babe every day.
Now many on here have shown that they like the full signatures because they are more unique and/or different. I think that is a perfectly fine reason, but you asked about rarity and if it's worth more.
To me, you should collect what excites you and what you are passionate about. Collecting something because you perceive it to be worth more is setting oneself up for disappointment if it turns out not to be worth more.
Just my opinion.
Best,
Mark

We are talking about collectors of today. Of course I would love to have a Gerorge Herman Ruth. But for todays collectors that will be there history. I have always collected full name balls and did not pay extra. I think a Theodore Samuel Williams is great just like Joseph Paul Dimaggio. The plyars of today will be the stars they will remember. Are you telling me that if you owned a full name Rurth ball it would not be worth a fortune or Melvin Thomas Ott. I dont think that people thought to ask during that time.
I can tell you that for a fact full name balls sell for more than a regular ball. Just like roy balls mvp balls no hit balls. They all increase in value because people collect them. I had Pee Wee Reese sing the Kentucky Corne. Koufax signed it Sandford. What is wrong with have something a little different if they are willing to sign it. I do think you are correct when you have to pay fifty dollars for anything but a signiture.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by shelly

We are talking about collectors of today. Of course I would love to have a Gerorge Herman Ruth. But for todays collectors that will be there history. I have always collected full name balls and did not pay extra. I think a Theodore Samuel Williams is great just like Joseph Paul Dimaggio. The plyars of today will be the stars they will remember. Are you telling me that if you owned a full name Rurth ball it would not be worth a fortune or Melvin Thomas Ott. I dont think that people thought to ask during that time.
I can tell you that for a fact full name balls sell for more than a regular ball. Just like roy balls mvp balls no hit balls. They all increase in value because people collect them. I had Pee Wee Reese sing the Kentucky Corne. Koufax signed it Sandford. What is wrong with have something a little different if they are willing to sign it. I do think you are correct when you have to pay fifty dollars for anything but a signiture.

Shelly,
I think you missed my point. I am not saying that full signature balls aren't less common or don't sell for more. I certainly am not trying to minimize or trivialize what someone else collects.
My point is that buying something because it is rarer or more valuable as the main reason is speculating not collecting. My suggestion to John is buy what he likes, regardless of whether anyone else thinks it is rare or valuable.
Also your comparison of a SS full name Ruth or Ott ball isn't really equal to Mike Trout. Ruth, etc are deceased HOFers who completed their careers. Trout, God forbid, could break his leg tomorrow and never play again. His full name auto would then be worth the exact same as his regular sig....nothing. Why would I pay a significant premium for a full name in this instance? If you collect Mike Trout, or the Angels in general, then the ball will mean as much to you regardless of whether it's a full name or not. If you collect only full name signed balls, then buy the ball and forget the rarity/valuation.

[1880nonsports]

I never heard Pee Wee Reese sing :-(

[shelly]

Mark, . I would go for full name if it did not cost more. I had every player sign there full name the only one that turned me down was Ken Griffey Jr. I liked the fact that it was a little bit different. If I had a chance to ask any one that played it would be will you sign your full name. I also said how about the people that pay fifty for a hundred dollars just to have ROY,MVP and so on. I think they are crazy but look at priceing today. If guy like Ruth and Ott where alive today you dont think they would charge the same. I think it was about fifteen years or more ago I bid on full name Gehrig check. It went for over $14,000 I have no idea what it would sell for today. Yes Trout could break a leg who cares? Why does a Gehirg ball sell for so much? He did not sign. So if you had a full name Gehrig ball it would sell for five hundred thousand or more. Why because you have never seen one in your life or Mel Ott or Ruth. I am just saying if it does not cost more go for it. If you remember Joe D never signed and the money came rolling in. Now look at what is worth today. If You had a Joseph Paul Dimaggiio ball
joed.jpg

No I have never heard Pee Wee Resse sing but if it is anything like Pee Wee Herman I would shut it off.

[dapro]

wow, shelly. I never seen that Joe D full name before. Quite rare and interesting. I ended up not paying $349 for the full name trout. It is cool and stuff, but not worth 3 times what a normal Trout signature goes for.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by shelly

I think it was about fifteen years or more ago I bid on full name Gehrig check. It went for over $14,000 I have no idea what it would sell for today. Yes Trout could break a leg who cares? Why does a Gehirg ball sell for so much? He did not sign. So if you had a full name Gehrig ball it would sell for five hundred thousand or more.

Nonsense, IMHO.

Gehrig's checks are expensive because they are rare, not because they are signed with his full, legal name. His contracts are quite expensive as well, and most are also signed "Henry Louis Gehrig." Do you think that's the reason they are valuable?

Legal documents should be--and usually are--signed with a player's legal name. Baseballs, I believe, should be signed with the name he played under. At least I, for one, prefer it that way.

I much prefer my "Babe Ruth" baseball to my "GH Ruth" check.

I don't like "created purely for collection" collectibles. I don't need--or want--to have every signed ball made unique in some way--by writing "ROY," or "HOF," or the player's middle name, or even, in the case of our beloved NY Yankee center fielder, "Fuck You."

"Mickey Mantle" will do just fine, thank you very much.

BTW, here's one he signed for me outside the Yankee Stadium player's entrance in 1966:

[GKreindler]

David, that ball is bad@$$. I'm hoping it has a pretty good memory to go along with it?

Graig

[David Atkatz]

A great memory, Graig. I posted the story a while back--I'll try to find it.