Future of signed photos in the hobby?

[Huck]

Originally Posted by JRS123490

I meant more generic photos. Like the common guys. Older guys that are uncommon on photos like Lombardi will most always do well.

There are tons of generic signed photos out there. Bob Feller died a decade ago and the price for a signed Feller photo has not moved. Why? Because Feller was a prolific signer. He signed at every piggly wiggly, car dealership, museum opening in just about every state. Feller was a great guy, affable and a true ambassador for the game but his signature is not in short supply. Jim Palmer is the new Feller.

Value wise a single signed baseball is worth more than a signed photo. A signed bat even higher.

https://www.psacard.com/smrpriceguid...autographs/177

I would have thought that a signed photograph of prewar players would be worth more than a signed ball. Players of that era likely signed more baseballs than photographs. I have seen people bring photographs to a game but in that era? I guess equipment will always rank higher than photographs.

Signed cards - I am in the camp that a signature defaces the value the card. It is a small niche within the hobby. I marvel at the collector on this board who is trying to complete a signed 1987 Topps set. Again, scarcity. Fewer collectors get cards signed. If demand for signed cards is on the rise with limited supply, prices increase. I just can't drop $130 for Cal Ripken to sign a card.

I just can't bring myself to start getting baseballs signed again. I have a few bats but collecting bats is a storage problem, I don't want to manage. Plus with tiered pricing it is costly to get bats signed.