What used to be the consensus on getting Vintage cards signed?

[Exhibitman]

Among old-time collectors there was such a prejudice that the cards often sold for far less than the cards themselves were worth just because of the signature. I always thought it was really cool so I happily bought lots of signed ones. Got some of my own signed too. When it was less 'industrial' than it is now you could even supply your own pens and ask the athlete to sign in a specific place and they would happily accommodate you. I did that with these two:





Gehringer was a mail-order and he still accommodated.

[GasHouseGang]

Did you read the article Doug posted? Mantle kept the 1951 Bowman the guy sent for an autograph! I hope it was a duplicate.

[nat]

Unfortunately, back in the day my LCS didn't have any signed cards, and when I went to shows I didn't look for them.

Also, enlighten someone who doesn't know anything about autographs: why are so many of them signed in blue sharpie?

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by nat

enlighten someone who doesn't know anything about autographs: why are so many of them signed in blue sharpie?

1. Ball-point pen signatures often provide poor contrast, and can tend to skip.
2. Black sharpie also provides poor contrast on dark cards, and can yellow over time
3. Red ink can fade

So, blue sharpie became the go-to pen.

Steve

[egri]

Originally Posted by nat

Also, enlighten someone who doesn't know anything about autographs: why are so many of them signed in blue sharpie?

I’ve also noticed older players signing with sharpie because they don’t have to press as hard as they do with a pen. Though just as a fountain pen signature would look out of place on a modern card, I will usually avoid a sharpie signature on an old card if there is a pen one available instead.

To the OP’s question, I first got into vintage around 2006, when I bought a 1949 Bowman Bobby Doerr. I was telling the LCS owner about my plan to send it TTM, and he was shaking his head before I had finished my sentence. I lost that card a while later, but in 2014 I picked up a replacement and got that one signed. Around that same time, I was starting my 1953 Topps project, and I initially had some trepidation about getting cards signed, but then I figured if I was buying low grade commons for $3-4 each, then there wasn’t a whole lot of harm getting it signed could do.

[drcy]

As a photograph guy and an autograph guy, I think the two should be kept separate.

If you have a high-quality original famous-photographer photo of Willie Mays or some celebrity (including modern) you don't want it autographed, especially in sharpie on the image. Those are two different genres, and you want the photo in its original state.

There are old photos-- cabinet cards, Hollywood portraits-- that are already signed, from back in the old days. But that's much different than getting a photo signed today.

I remember buying a Smokey Joe Wood signed photo. The seller didn't realize the original Conlon photo was much worth more than the signature itself. It was from the collection of old-time autograph collector Jeff Morey so was signed many years earlier.

For game-used bat collectors, some won't want them autographed or, if they are autographed, the autograph to be vintage. They don't want a 2015 Hank Aaron sharpie signature on a 1960s game-used bat. I know of collectors who remove authentic signatures from their game used bats. But tastes and practices vary amongst collectors.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by drcy

For game-used bat collectors, some won't want them autographed

I wouldn't get a game-used or game-worn anything signed.

To me it would destroy the "integrity" of the piece because it wasn't signed when it was actually used or worn in the game.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

My old friend, Dr. Walt Brown (Not related to this topic but he is a leading Kennedy assassination expert) used to be a contrarian and get all the old cards signed instead of the 8 X 10's which were so prevalent.

His logic, which was proven correct, was to get those cards signed since no one else was doing that.

And no, I have no idea what, if any of the vintage signed cards he still has.

Rich

Rich, as a side note, I believe I have one of your friends Books on the Kennedy assassination, as I love reading all about it. I would have to agree with his logic though, to get the cards signed at least. From my perspective, I think if I was collecting back then, I would've probably tried to own two copies of cards. One signed, and one unsigned. That way I can have the best of both worlds! As to your second point, one can only wonder.

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

I wouldn't get a game-used or game-worn anything signed.

To me it would destroy the "integrity" of the piece because it wasn't signed when it was actually used or worn in the game.

With the Game Worn items I would tend to agree, unless if the item in question was signed almost immediately after the game ended!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by egri

Though just as a fountain pen signature would look out of place on a modern card, I will usually avoid a sharpie signature on an old card if there is a pen one available instead.

Worst trade I ever did not make was for a Zeenut DiMaggio signed in a blue Sharpie. I just could not stand how jarring that big blue signature was against the BW card.

D'Oh!

[packs]

I waited a long time to find this one in pen:

[Seven]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

Did you read the article Doug posted? Mantle kept the 1951 Bowman the guy sent for an autograph! I hope it was a duplicate.

I found myself chuckling, I won't lie. I'm sure he was able to replace it though!