Your thoughts on signed HOF RCs

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by dgo71

To me it seems like one of those fads that will die out through the generations. Back in the 80s getting a pricey RC signed was taboo, and 8x10s were extremely popular. You can get photos for pennies on the dollar these days. The RC craze (which has extended to minor league issues as well, something I don't really get) gained a lot of steam during COVID but the prices shot up too dramatically, in my opinion, to really have any staying power. Add to the fact, more recent guys like Trout, Ohtani, Verlander, etc...their RCs will be in much shorter supply 10-20 years from now, considering they rarely do signings. In Trout's case, the last several signings he's done have had a "no card" policy. So while the post above mentioned 1960ish is the reasonable starting point, 2010ish might be a reasonable end point. I think once people realize the window for collecting HOF RCs is closing as quickly as it opened, it will lose some appeal, especially to younger collectors without as much disposable income. That's not to say there isn't a good amount of HOFers and potential HOFers for someone to collect in that 50-year span, but what will a signed Kaline RC be selling for in 10-20 years, and will anyone starting out be willing to pay that much for someone they genuinely don't know much about? As stated above though, it's about what you want to collect. Trying to collect as purely an investment is risky, but if you collect what you love, your collection will always have value to you. If that value happens to also be monetary down the road, consider that a bonus.

Originally Posted by Huck

Agreed. In the early 80's when I reentered the hobby, defacing a card with a signature was a hobby niche. Any card with an added signature could never be considered mint. I marvel at those collectors who collect signed sets (ex. 1987 Topps) but personally, signed cards is just not my thing. I do have a dozen or so signed cards, only because I wanted the player sitting next to Brooks Robinson at a freebie event to have something to sign.

I do like certain autographed sets. I collect the 2000 Fleer Greats of the Game (FGOTG) autographed set (down to 2-3 cards). I am still on the fence whether the Jeter should be considered part of the set. This would have to be verified but the 2000 FGOTG may have the most on-card hof autographs of any set. I also like the look of 2005 UD SP legendary cuts sets. Due to the one of ones this set would be near impossible to complete.

I'm curious (for both of you) why you think this will die out?

The modern card world has placed rookie autograph cards at the pinnacle of the hobby. Bowman Chrome has been pretty much the undisputed top set for rookie cards since then (although definitions of a rookie card now have them technically as pre-rookie cards since in most cases they are made before a player in a rookie in MLB), and they have had rookie autograph cards since 2001. For a huge percentage of players, their top rookie autograph cards (often in Bowman Chrome, but sometimes in other sets such as Topps Chrome) are considered their premier card.

Now, Topps is including the Debut game patch in cards, and this has almost certainly become the singular 'best' card a player can have. And those are signed.

Although hobby tastes can of course change, I feel like we are moving towards an era where it is accepted almost without question that a rookie autograph card represents one of, if not the best possible options available for collectors.

Additionally, @Huck - which 2000 Fleer Greats autos are you still looking for?

[Kzoo]

^ I agree, Jeff. I think vintage signed Rookie cards of the big, well known HOF'ers from the 1950's and earlier will always be desirable....20-30 years from now, every Tiger fan will hear the name 'Al Kaline' and know he was a Tiger Great. I think many MLB teams have done a great job at promoting their past legends into their current stadiums with displays, statues, and sections of the parks named after these guys. Just my 2 cents. I'm going to keep collecting them and love it!

[Huck]

Topnotchsy,

My apologies, I was agreeing with dgo71’s statement on “Back in the 80s getting a pricey RC signed was taboo” not whether the fad will die out. I wish that I had the foresight to realize that signed rookies was going to be a thing, so I could have stockpiled mid grade rookie cards signed by hall of famers.

I believe collectors will continue to get rookie cards signed as long as the definition of rookie cards remains the same. “It is generally agreed that to be a true rookie card, the card must be counted as part of a product's base set. Thus, limited quantity insert cards of any type are generally not considered to be rookie cards.” Card companies create scarcity with 1 of 1’s, limited runs 10, 20, 50 etc.. You mentioned autographed Topps debut game patch cards. Are those cards considered part of the base set or an insert? I guess it comes down to who determines which card is the true rookie, the cards companies, TPAs or the collectors? I would hope that a rookie card would be widely available not a limited run, patch with signature on the card.

It has been awhile since I have chased new wax. I want to believe that 2025 card releases happen before the season starts. The debut patch auto on card (unless the debut occurred late last year) would have to be released after the season started.

“Although hobby tastes can of course change, I feel like we are moving towards an era where it is accepted almost without question that a rookie autograph card represents one of, if not the best possible options available for collectors.”

It is an option, but not the only option. Kind of tough to determine on a site like Net54 where the majority of players collectors fancy are long dead. There are plenty of collectors who do not collect autographs and want cards pack fresh clean.

“Additionally, @Huck - which 2000 Fleer Greats autos are you still looking for?”

Mike Schmidt and Robin Yount. Still on the fence whether Jeter is part of the set.

[homerunhitter]

Thanks guys for your thoughts on this. Some very good discussions here.

When it comes to PSA labels is there a premium for/do you guys prefer:

1. PSA labels that say trading card vs the actual card (ex: “trading card” vs 1983 topps #498 Wade Boggs)

2. PSA labels that grade the autograph vs not (ex: label says GEM MT 10 vs a label that doesn’t have an autograph grade)

3. Is there any preference between old PSA labels (the old blue labels) vs the newer PSA labels (the newer blue labels)

Thanks

[dgo71]

I just think that on a long enough timeline something else will take the place of signed RC's. I don't necessarily think it will be quick, or anytime soon, but collecting tastes change over the generations. It used to be programs or GPCs, then it was baseballs, then 8x10s, then Perez Steele, now cards...seems like each generation moves to something new to claim as their own and the stuff that was previously collected becomes (though not completely undesirable) less desirable.

To the point of the RCs from the 1950s and older always retaining value, I do agree with that, but that is more a product of scarcity than new collectors clamoring for signed RC's of players that passed away before they were born. I think most people who follow baseball will always know Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, etc. but how many kids today can tell you who Bobby Doerr or Billy Williams were? And how many in 20 years will know them? I get autographs in person at my local minor league park, and the vast majority of collectors out there are in their 20's, and whenever I bring up a HOFer that isn't in the upper echelon, these kids have no idea who I'm talking about. The market for people collecting older signatures will eventually become very small (not non-existent, but small) as time goes on.

As for the pack pulled, patch embedded, factory signed RC thing, those cards also have the benefit of being genuine autographs (though a debate for another thread, let's assume this to be true). Also, there is a finite amount of them in the market and if the player becomes a star, like say Albert Pujols, there will always be demand for that particular card. In the technological era we live in, people streaming box breaks chasing a high dollar insert is hugely popular. This adds to the allure of these insert cards (like the Skenes 1/1 that was pulled recently) and just as this is something we would have NEVER foreseen in the 1980's, it very well may seem archaic in the 2050's. As a pack-pulled signed card, the inserts also cross over from the autograph collector universe to the card collector universe, whereas a card signed in person at a ballpark isn't something who is a "card" collector first would really be interested in. Either way, I wasn't really considering factory produced certified cards when I made my original comment, but more geared towards the current craze of getting a player's first card signed, in person or at a show, etc. That's actually a fairly niche group, which only recently (pandemic years) really got into high gear.

Another factor that will hurt as time goes on, is where someone would draw the line in their collecting pursuits. It's easy (enough) to secure a signed 1954 Topps Al Kaline (his one and only RC) but what does a HOF RC collector do now that Ichiro has made the Hall? Beckett lists 47 different cards as true RC's for Ichiro, many of them serially numbered. Do one or two of those RCs, like his Topps or Bowman, become the standard-bearer? Obviously a question only each collector can answer, but I believe the sheer number of different RCs more current players have will ultimately be the source of frustration for a lot of HOF RC collectors.

Anyway, just my opinion, I have nothing against signed HOF RC's or those who collect them. This is all speculative, and long-term and rooted more in just what I've observed in 40-ish years in the hobby, which is that, in general, what people value as the hot commodity in collecting seems to shift over the decades. I think HOF RCs will be no different. All the more reason to always follow the one and only real rule in this hobby, and that's collect what you like. Then it doesn't matter what value is assigned to the items, now, or 100 years from now.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I think most people who follow baseball will always know Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, etc. but how many kids today can tell you who Bobby Doerr or Billy Williams were? And how many in 20 years will know them?

It's just like the changing tastes of music (and music autographs/memorabilia) with each successive generation. When it comes to rock & roll, you can replace Ruth, Cobb, and Aaron in your statement with The Beatles (and maybe Bob Dylan), and Bobby Doerr and Billy Williams with every other band/musician. Beatles stuff will always be a sound investment; it's not going anywhere but up. But I guarantee you that every other rock & roller, no matter how huge they've been in the past 50+ years, is on the downslide. Even Elvis is losing a great deal of relevancy. Frankly, with Elvis, that makes sense to me. Beatles music and material aside, fewer and fewer people just won't care about the rest of it. It's really hard to fathom, but that's just the way of the world. I have a handful of truly historic and valuable rock pieces which I am stupid for not parting with today. I just can't bring myself to do it. Now is the time to sell, as the most interested people with the buying power are all senior citizens. The music and memorabilia of the biggest non-Beatles musicians from the rock era will continue to capture the progressively dwindling interest of later generations, but will ultimately nearly fizzle out.

Look at one generation prior: outside of someone like Sinatra, you can barely give away Big Band era material. There's still a somewhat strong niche interest in rare jazz and blues material, but that has been waning as well. Even Sinatra won't ultimately hold his value. I'll give a huge recent example of this playing out: not long ago, a manuscript purported to be the first draft of Hoagy Carmichael's "Star Dust" sold at auction. For younger people reading this, "Star Dust" was to earlier generations what "Yesterday" became to those people's children and grandchildren. It was the most famous, beloved and covered song of all time. Some say that it was covered by even more artists than "Yesterday". The selling price for this manuscript was barely over $10,000. The problem is that there are so few people alive today who understand and appreciate the esteem in which this song was held by so many. I'm a huge fan of Carmichael and his work, but knew enough to not bid on this cherished piece no matter how much I wanted to own it if I wanted to protect my money.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by homerunhitter

1. PSA labels that say trading card vs the actual card (ex: “trading card” vs 1983 topps #498 Wade Boggs)

2. PSA labels that grade the autograph vs not (ex: label says GEM MT 10 vs a label that doesn’t have an autograph grade)

3. Is there any preference between old PSA labels (the old blue labels) vs the newer PSA labels (the newer blue labels)

I really dislike the 'trading card' labeled signed cards. For an extra $10 or so on a bulk submission, you can get the card dual graded with the card specifics. I normally crack and resubmit the one's I acquire.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by homerunhitter

Thanks guys for your thoughts on this. Some very good discussions here.

When it comes to PSA labels is there a premium for/do you guys prefer:

1. PSA labels that say trading card vs the actual card (ex: “trading card” vs 1983 topps #498 Wade Boggs)

2. PSA labels that grade the autograph vs not (ex: label says GEM MT 10 vs a label that doesn’t have an autograph grade)

3. Is there any preference between old PSA labels (the old blue labels) vs the newer PSA labels (the newer blue labels)

Thanks

You probably know this but for those who do not.

PSA is a card grading service that can also grade the autograph

PSA/DNA is an autograph authentication service, so it does not assess the card.

Same brand, two different services. For signed cards, the former is generally more desirable.

[Polarboy]

I go to school close to a spring training ground, and often go graphing during the season. Personally I don't like to get cards signed, because if it's a big player, that card is getting destroyed. I much prefer collecting a bunch of sigs on a single ball. That's just me though.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Huck

Topnotchsy,

My apologies, I was agreeing with dgo71’s statement on “Back in the 80s getting a pricey RC signed was taboo” not whether the fad will die out. I wish that I had the foresight to realize that signed rookies was going to be a thing, so I could have stockpiled mid grade rookie cards signed by hall of famers.

I believe collectors will continue to get rookie cards signed as long as the definition of rookie cards remains the same. “It is generally agreed that to be a true rookie card, the card must be counted as part of a product's base set. Thus, limited quantity insert cards of any type are generally not considered to be rookie cards.” Card companies create scarcity with 1 of 1’s, limited runs 10, 20, 50 etc.. You mentioned autographed Topps debut game patch cards. Are those cards considered part of the base set or an insert? I guess it comes down to who determines which card is the true rookie, the cards companies, TPAs or the collectors? I would hope that a rookie card would be widely available not a limited run, patch with signature on the card.

It has been awhile since I have chased new wax. I want to believe that 2025 card releases happen before the season starts. The debut patch auto on card (unless the debut occurred late last year) would have to be released after the season started.

“Although hobby tastes can of course change, I feel like we are moving towards an era where it is accepted almost without question that a rookie autograph card represents one of, if not the best possible options available for collectors.”

It is an option, but not the only option. Kind of tough to determine on a site like Net54 where the majority of players collectors fancy are long dead. There are plenty of collectors who do not collect autographs and want cards pack fresh clean.

“Additionally, @Huck - which 2000 Fleer Greats autos are you still looking for?”

Mike Schmidt and Robin Yount. Still on the fence whether Jeter is part of the set.

Definitely agree that there is no way to predict where things will end up. But I think that viewing the hobby in spaces where younger collectors are (and looking at new card releases) does point in that direction. (Although popularity of a few new insert sets like Kaboom and rookie card sets like Upper Deck Young Guns in hockey point to a potential shift.)

Re: Fleer GOTG. Schmidt and Yount are definitely two of the tougher ones. I started building the set a couple of years ago and got most of the SP's, though I hit a bit of a wall on it, and have not decided whether to continue. I do have those two actually. Gotta decide if I'm ready to let them go and if so, happy to discuss.

[hawaiian bam bam]

is it safe to say that psa slabs with the gem mt 10 label are preferred more by the hobby?

[theshleps]

I personally dont like grading especially the difference between a 5 and 6 or 6 and 7 etc is so subjective and different graders will disagree. I know it can make a big difference in value but I just want a nice conditioned card and autograph. Couldn't carfe iof graded or not

[homerunhitter]

I think most people like the auto grade Slabs for the PSA set registry