Finally- one I actually needed, E224-2

[Bicem]

Big fan of the Texas Tommy type 2's, much better looking than the type 1's and love the rarity. Congrats!

[T206Collector]

....of negotiating and bidding to finally nab this one. I avoided bidding on it on ebay in October 2006, because the signature was hard to see and not authenticated. Then once it came back authentic in the hands of a fellow collector I tried in vain to wrest it from his grasp, til it wound up in Huggins and Scott's auction, where I again failed to win it. I finally had the trade bait to make this one mine a couple of weeks ago:

From Autographed T206

[T206Collector]

Leon,

Is that Hooper's signature in the upper left corner?!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Leon,

Is that Hooper's signature in the upper left corner?!

yes it is Harry's signature and has a PSA/DNA LOA.....As Rhett stated, and I agree with, I would just as soon it not be there.....but it doesn't bother me too much since it's light and doesn't touch Hooper at all...

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Leon

I would just as soon it not be there.....but it doesn't bother me too much since it's light and doesn't touch Hooper at all...

I used to think that way. Before I purchased my first signed T206 card about 5 years ago, I debated whether the signature even added anything to the card or whether it just detracted from its appearance and value.

Now I can hardly imagine preferring an unsigned card to a signed one.

Oh, and here's another signed E224-2....

From Misc. Pre-War

[rhettyeakley]

I have always felt that a signature on an otherwise common card adds a lot to the piece, like your T206's. However, I think a signature on the front of a true rarity tends to reduce the # of potential buyers and is a bit distracting, like in the case of the E224-2--but it is still a great card that I would have loved to have won.
-Rhett

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

. . . . I think a signature on the front of a true rarity tends to reduce the # of potential buyers and is a bit distracting. . . .

You raise two different points, both of which are well-taken. First is that the market for rarities is higher when they are not autographed. I am not sure I completely agree, but I think it is more contextual. Could you imagine the value of an autographed T206 of Honus Wagner or Eddie Plank? Through the roof, would be my guess. But again, I think it is contextual in terms of the rarity and the signature.

With respect to the "distraction" point, I think that's an important issue in autographed card (or photo) collecting. The color, size, clarity and placement of the signature can either add to or detract from the overall presentation and image of the piece. In the case of the Hooper, I think the signature is more distracting than, say, the Marquard above given overall aesthetics.