Why are pencil autographs from the pre-1950s era so disrespected by collectors?

[T206Collector]

...an art eraser to remove pencil from T206 cards, with mixed results. Sometimes it works amazingly well, with no trace of pencil or damage to the cardboard. Sometimes you can still see where the pencil is and the card may appear a bit lighter. With the Gehrig, the "Nick" is really drawn in there deeply and darkly, so I'd probably leave it alone. But it is extremely tempting. I'd probably pay a professional to carefully remove the name for me.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

But it is extremely tempting. I'd probably pay a professional to carefully remove the name for me.

Why?!

The card is an historical artifact. Nick Gillis wrote to Gehrig in 1937, and Gehrig responded. That is an (admittedly extremely minor) historical fact. Why do you have to pretend that Gehrig sent the card to you?

[mr2686]

I agree David, and I'll take it a step futher. On someone like Gehrig, wouldn't you want as many words in his own hand? I could understand if some kid who got an autograph through the mail wrote on it and you wanted to try and erase that, but not something that was written by the actual signer. Just my .02

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Why?!

The card is an historical artifact. Nick Gillis wrote to Gehrig in 1937, and Gehrig responded. That is an (admittedly extremely minor) historical fact. Why do you have to pretend that Gehrig sent the card to you?

The card will be worth more if it didn't say "Nick". The reason for that is because generic signed items sell more than personalized ones, precisely because people want to feel a unique connection to the player.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

The card will be worth more if it didn't say "Nick". The reason for that is because generic signed items sell more than personalized ones, precisely because people want to feel a unique connection to the player.

How absurd--you'd feel a "unique connection to the player" by erasing someone else's name. I feel a unique connection to the player when I hold in my hand the same card or photo or baseball he did.

I don't feel any closer to the Babe holding this: (Ruth died before I was born; he never considered me "his pal.")


than I do holding this:


Yeah--the card will sell for more. A game-used Ruth jersey will bring the buyer more money if he cuts it into one inch squares, glues 'em to baseball cards, and inserts them randomly in the packs he's trying to flog. Is that OK, too?

And you card guys get bent out of shape if a paper fiber is hanging off the otherwise-pristine corner of your T206. Sheesh!

Do us memorabilia guys a favor--stick to cards, and don't go altering historical artifacts in the name of more profit when you resell.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

How absurd--you'd feel a "unique connection to the player" by erasing someone else's name. I feel a unique connection to the player when I hold in my hand the same card or photo or baseball he did.

You are missing the point. The unique connection is not derived by the erasure. I'm talking about the difference between personalized and not personalized. Most people would rather have a signed item that is not personalized than one which was personalized to someone. This is not surprising because it is harder to make the personal connection that drives autograph value when the item screams that connection was intended for someone else.

If you enjoy collecting autographed items that were personalized to other people, have a good time. But many people do not and erasing the name Nick would be tempting for them. You view "Nick" as more valuable words written by a legend. Others view it as four letters they wish Gehrig hadn't written.

If the person who owns this Gehrig decided to erase "Nick" because it would increase his enjoyment of the item, I would not fault him for it. It's his item to do with it as he wishes. And if he's concerned about the economic impact of that decision, I think that's his right. It is naive to ignore the economic realities of the collectibles market when you are spending money on collectibles and you aren't likely to take them with you when you die (although I've heard stories).

To each his own. Sorry you view this item as the Declaration of Independence. If you want to be the Morality Police of how people should treat their sports collectibles, have fun. Get up on your soap box about how one of Ruth's jerseys has been cut up for more collectors to share and that it is an outrage. It's an easy ruse.

Finally, what the paper fiber of T206 cards has to do with this discussion is beyond me. If it was an attack on me for caring about card condition, it was as misguided as it was irrelevant. 99% of my T206 cards are raw PR-VG condition, including my Magie and Plank, the latter of which was owned by Lionel Carter, Mr. Condition-sensitive himself!

But I will take your advice and "stick to cards" -- I've never been interested in collecting memorabilia anyway. The only cross-over here is that I collect signed pre-war cards.

[HRBAKER]

The only "unique" connection I feel is that I am holding or own something that the player has touched/signed. Nothing more than that to me. As for personalization that is for each person to decide for themselves. It certainly wouldn't keep me from buying something I wanted if it was personalized and I can't see myself trying to remove it afterwards. In rare cases I have bought something just because it was personalized.

[T206Collector]

But, c'mon, David and Jeff.... the two examples you shared of not caring if it was personalized (or wanting it more) were both personalized with your names. Of course the feeling would be different there.

To be clear, obviously a fair number of autograph collectors will still buy something regardless of whether it was personalized to someone else. For me, I'd collect personalized T206 cards every day of the week. But it is also obvious that non-personalized, signed items are in higher demand and appeal to a wider audience.

[David Atkatz]

No, you are "missing the point." The point is a holograph item, is, in general, an historic artifact. As such, it should not be altered. Period.

The Ruth jersey was not cut up so that "more collectors could share." It was cut up so that Upper Deck would make more money. And it is a totally relevant analogy, as your first point was that the postcard would be worth more (i,e., sell for more) without the word "Nick."

I also collect historical autographs--what many purists would call "real" autograph collecting. (I don't call it that, so don't jump down my throat.) In that realm a simple signature is scorned. The real value is in an item's content and historical importance--letters with "good" content, and historically meaningful documents. Those letters are, of course, addressed to someone, and in almost every case it's someone other than the letter's current owner. In the past, many of these items have been destroyed by people's simply clipping off the signature to obtain "an autograph." Erasing a salutation is the same thing, differing only, perhaps, in degree, but not in kind.

When dealing with an artifact, the rule is "First, do no harm." No museum would consider for an instant the mutilation of a piece. Collectors have the same responsibility towards history.

And if the reference to the card's side almost anal compulsion with condition is beyond you, think a bit harder. You wouldn't dream of changing the condition of a card--any alteration is verboten; treat "autographs' the same way.

[HRBAKER]

No, my point was and is that I have never let the fact that something was personalized keep me from buying it, I have never considered altering it after I did and on rare occasions (such as the one above) havebought something that I would not have otherwise bought solely bc it was personalized.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The Ruth jersey was not cut up so that "more collectors could share." It was cut up so that Upper Deck would make more money.

There are many collectors who love it, which is why there was money in it. Profit was generated by the interest in sharing the jersey.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The real value is in an item's content and historical importance--letters with "good" content, and historically meaningful documents.

Absolutely. But that's a different kind of collector. Some people collect single signed, sweet spot balls, and would erase the non-sweet spot second signature. Some people like letters with historical content. Again, to each his own.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

When dealing with an artifact, the rule is "First, do no harm." No museum would consider for an instant the mutilation of a piece. Collectors have the same responsibility towards history.

You are ascribing a moral responsibility to collecting baseball artifacts. If that's your value system, more power to you. I more or less agree with you that "Nick" should not be erased. But I would totally understand and not pass judgment on the person who would.

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

And if the reference to the card's side almost anal compulsion with condition is beyond you, think a bit harder. You wouldn't dream of changing the condition of a card--any alteration is verboten; treat "autographs' the same way.

In my post above (#31), I admitted erasing pencil from T206 cards. I do not think that is verboten. I understand some card purists do, but I don't. And both SGC and PSA will grade T206 cards with evidence of erasures. PSA will still give it an MK qualifier, which they would have done even if the pencil had not been erased; and SGC will just grade it an SGC 40 or lower.

And in any event, the reason it must have been "beyond me" is that your original post was not about card alteration, but instead a reference to corner damage, which I still think is irrelevant to this discussion.