What is better for autographs on a card? Pen or Sharpie

[LEIDEMEG]

Never have known the answer to this. Someone asked me the other day if the auto was a Sharpie or Ball Point. I guess from a preservation stand point. Would love opinions. I collect the 64 Topps Giants autograph set and most, nearly all, are ballpoint..just curious.

[Scott Garner]

IMHO- I believe that this is completely a personal choice. Ball point or fountain pen are old school. Sharpie sigs are more common today.
FWIW- I guess I'm old school because I would always prefer the ink medium that is consistent with the era of the actual card. If I do have a card signed with Sharpie I prefer ultra fine point and usually black.
I hope this helps!

[perezfan]

I think that's a great answer... the pen should be consistent with the age of the card. So for pre-1950s, fountain pen would be best, 50s -70s perhaps ballpoint, and 80s - the present perhaps signed in sharpie.

It's just a personal preferance (and beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but I agree with Scott that this is what looks most attractive.

[mr2686]

From a preservation standpoint I don't think it really matters. As someone who collects signed cards to use in team matted projects (60 pirates, 61 Yankees, etc) I think pen signatures have a better "feel" for the era. With that said, there are times that pen signatures just get lost in some of the darker areas of cards. As Scott said, the ultra finepoint sharpie looks really good on cards, but it's a personal preference thing. Here's a couple of examples of strong signatures on 1960 pirates cards. I think both look good, but if the Stuart had been signed in pen, it would not have stood out as nice.

[Exhibitman]

I prefer the sharpie-type implement for modern signatures. Ballpoint pen isn't a great ink, especially vintage ballpoint. There is a significant fading problem even with appropriate light handling, and if you display, forget it. I had a nice Ryan-signed baseball that faded so far so fast that I had to take it down after a very short time. Sharpies aren't colorfast either but they seem to do a lot better when exposed to light than ballpoint does. Pencil doesn't look great but it seems to last forever--the pencing writing on the Exhibits I have is as sharp as the day the stupid kids scribbled it.

[T206Collector]

I think it has to do with the overall composition/presentation of the item being signed. Here are a couple of my favorites, which are my favorites because of how well the signature presents on the card. The ink/pen complements the card in these cases:

Ball Points:




Fountain Pens:

[frankhardy]

Now that I've wiped the drool from my face -

I prefer the ink to be consistent with the era. I owned 2 1966 Topps Curt Ford PSA/DNA cards at the same time. I sold the Sharpie and kept the ink for that very reason. It just looked more vintage. (Curt Flood sigs below, these all passed PSA/DNA)

Ball point pen on modern card (especially the glossy ones from the 90's and 2000's) really look bad in my opinion. The ink just doesn't take to them very well, therefore, Sharpie is the only way to go. (2001 Topps Traded Pujols Sharpie pic below)

[3and2]

I also think you need to consider the age of the person signing. Perhaps if they are elderly, they may not be able to press very hard w/ an ink pen, therefore, the signature might look light. A ultra thin sharpie would allow the signature to appear more bold.

I really don't like signatures when it is difficult to see or read. However, when it is signed w/ a ink pen and it is crisp and bold it is really sweet.

[HRBAKER]

Like most who have weighed in, I like to try to match the medium with what the card would most likely have been signed with during the day. Although I am not a big fan of pencil autographs, the Ott card below was most likely signed during his playing days like the Lopez which is signed in fountain pen. For the Maris card, I waited until I found an ink signed one passing on a few Sharpie signed ones beforehand. Finally for most anything 1980 and on only a Sharpie will do.