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

[perezfan]

Great points, and well articulated by both sides. It's an interesting debate, but ultimately there is no right or wrong! That's the beauty of this hobby... collect what you like

[J.McMurry]

ya'll seem to have blurred the "market difference" between modern and vintage autographs.
When buying modern autographs personalization is BAD.
when buying vintage sigs, it's ok(especially Ruths, gehrigs, cobbs, etc.)

It's not a hard and fast rule,but similar to the card market belief that,"prewar must be in a SGC holder, and post war in a PSA holder".

To each his own.

[Gary Dunaier]

I'm on the side of those who feel the personalization represents a few extra words in the player's hand. For those whose attitude is "it's something the player actually touched," personalization means the player touched it a little longer in order. Maybe just another second or two, but still...

As far as the whole pencil v. ink issue, ink seems more "permanent" than pencil, comments about pencil sigs not fading notwithstanding. In my mind there's always that possibility that a pencil autograph could be erased.

But I love the point Tom Hufford made about having to deal with a fountain pen, trying not to get ink leaking everywhere, that sort of thing, especially with crowds of excited kids surrounding you. We, with our modern Sharpies and Bics and other ink pens, don't have to deal with that concern, and since I, for one, have never really had to use a fountain pen, I just think of pens the way we use 'em now in 2010.