What did everyone think about Memory Lane’s strong Mickey Mantle on card autograph s

[sportscardpete]

The owner had incredible attention to detail. I imagine each year's version was at or near the top in terms of eye appeal.

[Snapolit1]

Seems like the nature of this hobby is that there always has to be one area running batshit crazy at any given time.

Didn't Mickey Mantle appear at card shows for many years? Seems weird these would be running insane, though agree with an earlier post that a well signed copy in great condition is probably pretty rare. Most were probably not taken care of well (by hobby standards).

[Seven]

Mantle is quite simply, in his own category of the post war Hobby. I don't think we can look at his prices and compare them to everyone else. Outside of "investors" we also have to realize that the people that idolized Mantle as a child, are all in their 60's and 70's at this point, and most likely have a good amount of disposable income to shell out on his signed cards. Or really anything related to them.

Do I find the prices a little ridiculous? Of course. However signed cards back when Mantle was touring the show circuit, we're not nearly as common place as now. Many collectors viewed a player signing a card as sacrilege, and people thought the signed cards were less valuable then their unsigned counterparts.

I'd have less of an issue with the pricing on his early issues, if they were signed in his playing days signature, in pen. I honestly can't stand the way a thick sharpie looks on vintage cardstock.

[Snapolit1]

Mays signature with a thick sharpie . . . horrible muddled mess.

Originally Posted by Seven

Mantle is quite simply, in his own category of the post war Hobby. I don't think we can look at his prices and compare them to everyone else. Outside of "investors" we also have to realize that the people that idolized Mantle as a child, are all in their 60's and 70's at this point, and most likely have a good amount of disposable income to shell out on his signed cards. Or really anything related to them.

Do I find the prices a little ridiculous? Of course. However signed cards back when Mantle was touring the show circuit, we're not nearly as common place as now. Many collectors viewed a player signing a card as sacrilege, and people thought the signed cards were less valuable then their unsigned counterparts.

I'd have less of an issue with the pricing on his early issues, if they were signed in his playing days signature, in pen. I honestly can't stand the way a thick sharpie looks on vintage cardstock.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Mays signature with a thick sharpie . . . horrible muddled mess.

It's a terrible look. The move away from what I would presume are Fountain Pens, to sharpies was awful. How can anyone tell me a card signed in a sharpie would look better than this?

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by Seven

It's a terrible look. The move away from what I would presume are Fountain Pens, to sharpies was awful. How can anyone tell me a card signed in a sharpie would look better than this?

Wowsers! That is an amazing Ruth auto. I couldn’t agree with you more.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Seven

It's a terrible look. The move away from what I would presume are Fountain Pens, to sharpies was awful.

An important part of the transitionary evolution, and the one that made permanent markers the implement of choice for cards: the ballpoint pen. For cards, they were far too temperamental, especially in an in-person, ballpark situation. Too many light signatures signed in too many dark areas. Many IP signatures were signed so poorly that they look more like indentations on the cardboard rather than autographs.

We also had the (thankfully) short-lived period of the flair pen, which ran concurrent with 1960's ballpoint all the way into the 1970's era when Sharpies started cornering a nice portion of the process.

Love them or hate them, Sharpies definitely earned their place. I agree with you that a period fountain pen signature is king, but they too could be temperamental. So many variables. Sharpies and the like are the most consistent for cards, so their staying power is quite understandable.

[raulus]

My mostly worthless thoughts:

Can't say that I really care all that much, since I stay away from autographed pieces. Nothing against them. Just not my thing. We've all got to draw the line somewhere, and this is definitely one that's off my list.

But for the sellers, bully for them.

If you enjoy collecting autographed Mantle cards, then I guess the cost is higher today than it used to be. So hopefully you aren't too agitated by that possibility.

On the other hand, some part of me assumes that if people are chasing this stuff and spending all their cash on it, then it means less focus and competition for me on the stuff that I really want. Probably just wishful thinking, but if I'm looking for a silver lining, then I guess I'll focus on this.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

An important part of the transitionary evolution, and the one that made permanent markers the implement of choice for cards: the ballpoint pen. For cards, they were far too temperamental, especially in an in-person, ballpark situation. Too many light signatures signed in too many dark areas. Many IP signatures were signed so poorly that they look more like indentations on the cardboard rather than autographs.

We also had the (thankfully) short-lived period of the flair pen, which ran concurrent with 1960's ballpoint all the way into the 1970's era when Sharpies started cornering a nice portion of the process.

Love them or hate them, Sharpies definitely earned their place. I agree with you that a period fountain pen signature is king, but they too could be temperamental. So many variables. Sharpies and the like are the most consistent for cards, so their staying power is quite understandable.

Really no form of medium for autographs is going to be 100% perfect. I will say that Sharpies are the most reliable but I just can't get on board with how they look, at least on cards.

A part of me does wonder, and I'm sure they exist, the amount of cards from the 50's that were signed using fountain pen? I would think some of them exist, for players like Mantle, Mays, etc. While the pens certainly fell out of favor, I'd presume that a guy like Mantle most likely grew up using a Fountain Pen. A part of me also wonders (as I wasn't alive), would people show up to shows in the 70's and 80's and request the type of pen a player would use on their item?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Mays signature with a thick sharpie . . . horrible muddled mess.

Here's one I once owned. Yummy. And he could see perfectly fine at this point. Nice smear job.

The worst is that 52T he signed at the tail end of his doing shows. Went right off the card and kept signing the table draping or whatever to the right of it. Just infuriating that something like that would happen. It was pretty shortly after that when he put a stop to signing. Probably for the best, in spite of the truckloads of money he would have continued to make. By this point, he'd make Cool Papa Bell look like Gene Lillard.

[Duluth Eskimo]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Here's one I once owned. Yummy. And he could see perfectly fine at this point. Nice smear job.

The worst is that 52T he signed at the tail end of his doing shows. Went right off the card and kept signing the table draping or whatever to the right of it. Just infuriating that something like that would happen. It was pretty shortly after that when he put a stop to signing. Probably for the best, in spite of the truckloads of money he would have continued to make. By this point, he'd make Cool Papa Bell look like Gene Lillard.

Classic Cool Papa and Gene Lillard comment. I’m sure that fell on deaf ears. I laughed out loud. Mays was an ass at every show.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I'm happy to play to a crowd of one. Funny is funny, regardless of how many get it.

[campyfan39]

I am still of that opinion. The only cards I have signed are through the mail and that was just for the fun of it and I always had duplicates.

Originally Posted by Seven

However signed cards back when Mantle was touring the show circuit, we're not nearly as common place as now. Many collectors viewed a player signing a card as sacrilege, and people thought the signed cards were less valuable then their unsigned counterparts.

[robertsmithnocure]

Those Mantle cards really had exceptional visual appeal, but I do struggle with the Sharpie signatures. All else being the equal, I would think that vintage ballpoint or fountain pen signatures would bring a big premium, especially if it was signed near the year that the card was issued.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I am still of that opinion. The only cards I have signed are through the mail and that was just for the fun of it and I always had duplicates.

I also remember that for a long time the common wisdom was "Don't waste an autograph on a card, and don't waste a decent card getting an autograph," the theory being it would turn off both card AND autograph collectors. Wow, has that ever changed!

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Seems like the nature of this hobby is that there always has to be one area running batshit crazy at any given time.

Didn't Mickey Mantle appear at card shows for many years? Seems weird these would be running insane, though agree with an earlier post that a well signed copy in great condition is probably pretty rare. Most were probably not taken care of well (by hobby standards).

Agree with the majority here.

Mantle is a weird auto and in line with Ruth in its unconventional value when compared to supply. Mantle and Ruth signed so much crap that it would be impossible to not find a few hundred items for sale at any time in less than an hour. However they defy the logic on pricing.

The reason I think these were more outside the box was card condition. If you were collecting in the 80s, the value of a card was brought down by a signature. This is why most examples are on poorly centered or condition cards. People had their beaters signed and the good cards in the binder.

So I agree, these are complete outliers on the condition and thus hens teeth for autograph examples.

[Hankphenom]

I never understood how the medium sharpie ever came to be the standard over the fine point sharpie. Maybe the fine is a little too thin, but the medium looks clunky as heck to my eyes. Something in between, perhaps. As for fountain pens, yes they look great but anyone old enough to have carried them to school or work and had nice shirts ruined or documents spoiled by leakage knows why they went the way of the dodo bird. Ballpoints just too unpredictable, but I guess you really have to use them on balls.

[jsfriedm]

Personally not a fan of autographed cards except in some very rare instances (would like a signed 1939 Play Ball Ted Williams - that card could use some extra decoration), but I wonder if the vintage autograph trend has legs because increasingly new vintage collectors will be people who came from modern, where they were always chasing autographed cards. If autographed Mike Trouts and Patrick Mahomes have always seemed like the holy grail, might you not maintain that mindset if your focus shifts to Mantle and Mays?

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

Personally not a fan of autographed cards except in some very rare instances (would like a signed 1939 Play Ball Ted Williams - that card could use some extra decoration), but I wonder if the vintage autograph trend has legs because increasingly new vintage collectors will be people who came from modern, where they were always chasing autographed cards. If autographed Mike Trouts and Patrick Mahomes have always seemed like the holy grail, might you not maintain that mindset if your focus shifts to Mantle and Mays?

This is an interesting thought process and it makes complete sense to me. As modern collectors migrate over and are used to collecting autos it makes total sense to me that they might hit the ground running chasing vintage autos.

[Snapolit1]

What I truly find inexplicable in the modern realm is that someone will pay $20,000 for a 1/1 Babe Ruth cut auto card, where you can buy a decent Babe auto and cut it out yourself if you are so inclined for half that, and that people will pay a silly amount for a "rare" relic card containing small swatches from players pants or jersey, yet have no interest in buying a compleye jersey the guy wore for the same price or not much more.

If you think PSA has a magic touch in putting cards is slabs and giving them a special number, you should see what Panini can do buy purchasing something, cutting it up, and putting in a piece of card board and slapping on it 1/1 or 1/5.