The New York Times puts their two cents into the Jeter memorabilia story

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Of course I do. They never should have created the "market" in the first place. (Then there'd be nothing to "dilute.")

Here you actually fault the athlete because a fan sold his signature.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Here you actually fault the athlete because a fan sold his signature.

What are you talking about? If the athlete keeps signing for free, there's no market for the sold signature. A few will sell, but not many, and not for high prices. Only the athlete has the power to create a real market, by not "leaking."

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

What are you talking about? If the athlete keeps signing for free, there's no market for the sold signature. A few will sell, but not many, and not for high prices. Only the athlete has the power to create a real market, by not "leaking."

D'oh, we were so close to an agreement here.

I think what you meant is "only the athlete has the power to dilute his market." This might be chicken egg territory, but I think the market arose from collector behavior, and the athlete can either try to tap into that market, or spare no effort to dilute the market. I think most athletes do a combination of both. And I certainly think, for the record, that Koufax is no worse than Ruth would have been in that department.

[David Atkatz]

You can keep believing whatever you like. Unfortunately, while we can imagine what Ruth might or might not have done in some alternate reality in which he meets Brandon Steiner, we'll never really know, will we?

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You can keep believing whatever you like. Unfortunately, while we can imagine what Ruth might or might not have done in some alternate reality in which he meets Brandon Steiner, we'll never really know, will we?

Never really knowing didnt seem to prevent you from making all sorts of gross assumptions and hyperbolic statements above. All I did was try to provide a shred of circumstantial evidence to challenge your apparent knowledge of Ruth's futuristic autograph altruism.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Never really knowing didnt seem to prevent you from making all sorts of gross assumptions and hyperbolic statements above. All I did was try to provide a shred of circumstantial evidence to challenge your apparent knowledge of Ruth's futuristic autograph altruism.

Gross assumptions and hyperbolic statements? Name one.

[David Atkatz]

Like Billy Pilgrim, you seem to be "unstuck in time." Never once did I hypothesize about "Ruth's futuristic autograph altruism." I only stated--over and over again, what Ruth actually did.

Sign. For free.

You're the one who pathetically tried to justify what Jeter and Koufax and... do today, by telling us what Ruth would have done, had he only known he could.

[Exhibitman]

I understand David's frustration with the commoditization of autograph collecting but it is seeing the past through rose-colored lenses [and terribly naive] to believe that the elite athletes of the past would not have embraced the current system had it been there. A lot of it comes down to personalities. Jeter falls into the Joe DiMaggio mode ["Gods do not answer letters"; a quote about Williams but aporpos here] of being a distant, regal personality. Having him engage in a 'sterile' signing is probably the only way it will happen; I bet that once his playing days are over he will be the sort who rarely does a show unless he needs the money. Babe Ruth was a big, gregarious personality who seemed to like people and signed a hell of a lot. That's unusual; he could handle it. Sandy Koufax is not. He's a shy man who's found a way to deal with fame and autograph seekers as painlessly as possible. Koufax could be out every weekend collecting big appearance fees and making commercials right and left if he was so inclined. He isn't. He does sign for free, BTW, but only for people he knows [a client who is a childhood "friend of Sandy" from Brooklyn got him to sign and personalize a ball for me several years ago*]. Bob Feller clearly had some personal need to be out there pushing all the time, meeting, greeting and signing away. He may have devalued his autograph to the point where it is almost a nuisance [dammit, Bob, put away the pen], but other than the odd quip about a Feller card not signed by Feller being a condition rarity, I don't hear any real complaining because he did so. I also don't hear anything bad about Stan Musial, who charges pretty good for his autograph [$100 for a flat TTM through his web site] but who delivers a winning personality when he does a show or deals with fans.



* Good story there: I had a Nolan Ryan inscribed signed ball that a cousin who worked for Bristol Meyers got for me during an Advil commercial shoot. When my client told me he was seeing Koufax and asked if I wanted a Koufax signature I asked him to have Koufax sign the same ball with the same inscription. He [client] called me and said "Sandy won't sign. He said 'what the f** do I want to be on a ball with Ryan for?'" It was a joke, of course; he signed it and it is a treasured baseball in my very modest collection.

[mark evans]

I should add to my last comment that star players can almost certainly afford to sign for free in my view and those who do so, if any, are worthy of admiration. I think one of the reasons more players don't sign for free, aside from greed, is due to a cynicism that developed some years ago, and later perhaps fueled by the internet, when it became apparent that a significant percentage of autograph seekers had commercial motives.

[mr2686]

I'm not sure I understand these modern athletes. I hear what Mark is saying and agree that it's probably annoying for a player to signed for an hour or two after a game, only to find several of the items up on ebay. What I don't understand is these guys making millions of dollars a year and then signing at shows for $200 a pop. Why not just announce that all proceeds are going to a certain charity. I'm sure they already give a lot to charity, but they certainly don't need the additional taxable revenue stream coming in. Or how about players that won't sign certain things? Why not sign those things for a premium amount for charity. Rick Monday, whom I respect the heck out of, won't sign the photo of him saving the flag unless it's for a charity auction because he feels he did what he did because it was the right thing to do. Hey, I'm all for that, but he could donate any auto fee...and charge a premium, for anytime he signs that photo.

[packs]

Can someone who is of the opinion that the fans are driving market prices explain their point of view a little more? I just don't see it. If athletes didn't charge, the market would be tiny. You would find the occasional fan purchasing an out of town athlete's signature every once in a while, sure. But i am of the opinion that prices are driven higher the more an athlete charges for their signature. Deceased players do not factor into the equation.

I am also not a hater of the card show. I think signings at card shows are fantastic. It's great to have the opportunity to meet so many otherwise inaccessible players. I do not fault a player at all for charging money for his time at a card show. However, I think the problem of excessive fees is disheartening. Although I don't think its as wide spread as Steiner. I usually only attend the White Plains shows and I usually don't have an issue with the fee any of their guests charge. Many times they have multiple free autograph guests at each show. Great operation.