Opinions on adding missing signatures to old team signed items

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will be the oddball and say I am not a fan. I was about to sign up to another auction house to bid on what would have been an amazing item. I could see the main signature I cared about looked off. Not off like a forgery but off as in it looked to be a newer version of his autograph. The person who consigned it confirmed my original opinion. So to me I no longer wanted it because it had a newer auto on an older item.

It would really depend on the item also. A 87 As team ball I would add Jose.

Not so oddball.... I completely agree.

I like to leave vintage things as they are, and it would bother me to have newly signed autos on a vintage ball. To me, they always stand out in an intrusive way.... brighter ink, bolder auto, slightly different colored ink, newer "style" of autograph, etc.

I like the uniformity of naturally aged baseballs and vintage ink, and I would not corrupt a vintage signed ball, as it would bother me every time I looked at it. Just my personal preference (since the question was asked), and not intended to influence the OP either way.

[JMEnglish27]

Thanks all!

[packs]

Today it would be pretty difficult for somebody to get something like a team signed baseball in a single event. And as mentioned, it is impossible to collect something like a baseball signed by every member of the 500 home run club without constantly adding signatures as time passes.

I think the only circumstance I would advise against getting a signature long after the fact would be if you wanted something like a Mickey Mantle and Mike Trout signed baseball.