Does anyone have an issue with buying "sloppy" autographs?

[David Atkatz]

The one thing that no one here seems to realize is that the abomination a contemporary athlete calls his "autograph" is NOT his signature. He doesn't sign contracts, legal documents, checks, etc., anything like that. Today's athlete is paranoid of his actual signature becoming public--identity theft, and other scams--and so makes up an "autograph." It is quite purposely illegible.
It is also, AFAIC, worthless.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The one thing that no one here seems to realize is that the abomination a contemporary athlete calls his "autograph" is NOT his signature. He doesn't sign contracts, legal documents, checks, etc., anything like that. Today's athlete is paranoid of his actual signature becoming public--identity theft, and other scams--and so makes up an "autograph." It is quite purposely illegible.
It is also, AFAIC, worthless.

This is a fascinating comment! Is this widely known among serious collectors who collect modern players' signatures? It suggests the possibility that somewhere out there there exists a signature of Miguel Cabrera that an english speaking human could actually read.

Imagine the value 50 years from now of a truly legible autograph from a hall-of-fame player of today! Can you name any specific players where you've seen the differences?