Questions for autograph collectors

[theshleps]

At times in my collecting I attempt to upgrade some signed cards I have.
I am curious on a vintage card would you rather have a nice conditioned card with a light or skiipy autograph OR a dinged up or trimmed card with a great condition autograph? I gravitate towards the latter but wondering what you all think.
I am also assuming you'd rather have a vintage style autograph as opposed to a later in life one?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Your first question presents quite the conundrum. I could never give a blanket answer on it; each instance would have to be weighed on its own, as you just never know which you might prefer until faced with the two cards in question. I would think, however, that I'd usually pass on a trimmed card if an untrimmed was available. Same goes for a taped over autograph on a card, and most often for something with extreme paper loss/non-removable scrapbook residue on the back. For that last example, however, I may still opt for that card if it has a beautiful autograph, the front displays fetchingly and the corners still look amazing thanks to being placed in a scrapbook vs. something soiled, rounded corners, O/C, etc. It's all on a case by case basis.

One related thing I want to add which you didn't mention, yet is important: if presented with two of the same card, I have to sometimes try to put my personal likes/dislikes aside and consider which of the two cards would end up having the broadest appeal to the next prospective buyer. I've faced that situation more than once, and it can sometimes be a challenging decision between the example I like the most vs. the one that I know others would better appreciate! Normally, I tend to fall on the same side as what I figure the general collecting population would opt for, but there have been instances of the opposite! If people aren't collecting with any thought towards later resale, then the decision becomes vastly easier!

Yet another related answer to a question you didn't ask (ha!): say I'm presented with two cards in fairly similar condition. One has an ink signature which for whatever reason is not ideal. The other has a bold pencil or pencil crayon autograph. I'm probably going to opt for the latter! These situations almost exclusively happen with pre-War cards, so chances are it's a case of a long-deceased player. If it's a player who lived to an advanced age, well into when the hobby grew, then I would just pass altogether and wait for something better to come along.

As to your last question, by all means, YES!

Here's an interesting example of two that I own. Joe Moore was a wonderful human being and was also my friend. First off, forget about the PSA slab on the one card and just pretend both are slabbed, or raw. If presented with both of these, which to keep and which to divest? The one features a career era, green fountain pen autograph, but is a touch lighter than the next example. The other has a bold, blue ballpoint signature, but signed post-career. It was definitely signed when Joe was still healthy and his signature hadn't started exhibiting the signs of aging. In this case, I'm sticking with the fountain pen. It's obviously also signed in the optimal spot. (It's more of a no-brainer decision based solely on these scans. If you had them in hand, you'd understand why the decision would become harder. The ballpoint is darker in person than the scan would suggest; the fountain pen lighter.)

[T206Collector]

It's all about the presentation for me. I suspect most people would rather have this SGC/JSA encapsulated Wheat from the Jeff Morey collection.


.
.
But this glued-to-a-file-card Wheat from the "Barefoot" Post collection has so much life and personality that make it really unmatchable. In the late 1960s, Post sent T206 cards glued to file cards to old ballplayers and asked for their autographs on the composite. Most signed the file card beneath the T206 card, a few signed the T206 card and the file card -- only Wheat signed both with the same stroke of the pen! Was he being funny? Earnest? A little bit of both? Regardless, signing this way requires the viewer to follow the pen strokes from left to right, noticing the little glitches when the pen hit the bump of the tobacco card, and then down again off the right side and back to the file card. Impossible just to flip by it when you see it. The holder takes more time with it than a standard card with autograph -- every time.



.
.
I'd rather have.... BOTH! And so I do.
.
.
.
.