What did everyone think about Memory Lane’s strong Mickey Mantle on card autograph s

[Golfpro10]

Curious what people think about the vintage on card autograph market and more specifically Mickey Mantle autographed cards. There was some really strong Mantle sales in the most recent auction and I would like to hear if people think on card vintage auto has a lot of room to go still or if people think its getting a little overpriced. All opinions welcome just looking to get a discussion going on the topic. I will attatch some of the sales.

[DeanH3]

Makes me wish I hadn't sold mine years ago. Had a '60, '61 and a '68 Topps that I had signed in person at a San Jose show back in the late 80's. The auto's looked exactly like the Memory Lane examples. I chose to keep the 8x10 photo I had signed instead. Good choice. LOL!

[Snowman]

If you're asking whether or not now is a good time to sell your signed Mantles too, the answer is yes.

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by DeanH3

Makes me wish I hadn't sold mine years ago. Had a '60, '61 and a '68 Topps that I had signed in person at a San Jose show back in the late 80's. The auto's looked exactly like the Memory Lane examples. I chose to keep the 8x10 photo I had signed instead. Good choice. LOL!

That is always the hard part. You can’t always keep everything so having to decide which things to keep and which ones to sell is the tricky part. Its a tough decision and autographed vintage seemed out of favor for a long time. I am sure I would have made the same decision as you and probably would have sold the cards and kept the photo also. Impossible to predict the shift in the market.

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If you're asking whether or not now is a good time to sell your signed Mantles too, the answer is yes.

I personally have zero intention of selling any of my signed vintage for a long while. I love the rarity aspect of it and that in most cases the autographed pop count is less then 1% of the actual total pop. I was just curious what people thought of the strong auction in an overall slower card market environment. I have spoken to a lot of people who still are not convinced of vintage auto’s and I just wanted to pick people’s brains on their overall opinion on the autograph vintage market in general.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Prices are ridiculous and not in line with logic.

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Prices are ridiculous and not in line with logic.

Interesting. Thanks for commenting. All thoughts are welcome on the topic. I love hearing everyones thoughts because this is a topic there will probably be some disagreement on. Thanks Billy.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Mantle autographed cards are not among the hobby's ultimate rarities. Some are more uncommon than others, and yes, they're exponentially more difficult to procure than their unsigned counterparts. In demand? That's always been evident, and that popularity is clearly surging.

Most signed Mantle cards were autographed during the card show era, so you're usually going to find gorogeous, bold Sharpie autographs with Mantle's eye to perfect signature placement. Therefore, the main variable in prices is simply conditions of the cards themsevles.

The JD McCarthy PC seemed to unfairly benefit from being included among the signed cards. It's not a card, it's a PC. $7500?! Yes, a nice, period autograph, but $7500... I'm guessing that was at most a $1200 piece not too long ago with a far smaller circle of interested buyers. I will be very interested to see what this one sells for the next time it hits the auction block.

[sportscardpete]

The owner had incredible attention to detail. I imagine each year's version was at or near the top in terms of eye appeal.

[Snapolit1]

Seems like the nature of this hobby is that there always has to be one area running batshit crazy at any given time.

Didn't Mickey Mantle appear at card shows for many years? Seems weird these would be running insane, though agree with an earlier post that a well signed copy in great condition is probably pretty rare. Most were probably not taken care of well (by hobby standards).

[Seven]

Mantle is quite simply, in his own category of the post war Hobby. I don't think we can look at his prices and compare them to everyone else. Outside of "investors" we also have to realize that the people that idolized Mantle as a child, are all in their 60's and 70's at this point, and most likely have a good amount of disposable income to shell out on his signed cards. Or really anything related to them.

Do I find the prices a little ridiculous? Of course. However signed cards back when Mantle was touring the show circuit, we're not nearly as common place as now. Many collectors viewed a player signing a card as sacrilege, and people thought the signed cards were less valuable then their unsigned counterparts.

I'd have less of an issue with the pricing on his early issues, if they were signed in his playing days signature, in pen. I honestly can't stand the way a thick sharpie looks on vintage cardstock.

[Snapolit1]

Mays signature with a thick sharpie . . . horrible muddled mess.

Originally Posted by Seven

Mantle is quite simply, in his own category of the post war Hobby. I don't think we can look at his prices and compare them to everyone else. Outside of "investors" we also have to realize that the people that idolized Mantle as a child, are all in their 60's and 70's at this point, and most likely have a good amount of disposable income to shell out on his signed cards. Or really anything related to them.

Do I find the prices a little ridiculous? Of course. However signed cards back when Mantle was touring the show circuit, we're not nearly as common place as now. Many collectors viewed a player signing a card as sacrilege, and people thought the signed cards were less valuable then their unsigned counterparts.

I'd have less of an issue with the pricing on his early issues, if they were signed in his playing days signature, in pen. I honestly can't stand the way a thick sharpie looks on vintage cardstock.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Mays signature with a thick sharpie . . . horrible muddled mess.

It's a terrible look. The move away from what I would presume are Fountain Pens, to sharpies was awful. How can anyone tell me a card signed in a sharpie would look better than this?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Mays signature with a thick sharpie . . . horrible muddled mess.

Here's one I once owned. Yummy. And he could see perfectly fine at this point. Nice smear job.

The worst is that 52T he signed at the tail end of his doing shows. Went right off the card and kept signing the table draping or whatever to the right of it. Just infuriating that something like that would happen. It was pretty shortly after that when he put a stop to signing. Probably for the best, in spite of the truckloads of money he would have continued to make. By this point, he'd make Cool Papa Bell look like Gene Lillard.

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by Seven

It's a terrible look. The move away from what I would presume are Fountain Pens, to sharpies was awful. How can anyone tell me a card signed in a sharpie would look better than this?

Wowsers! That is an amazing Ruth auto. I couldn’t agree with you more.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Seven

It's a terrible look. The move away from what I would presume are Fountain Pens, to sharpies was awful.

An important part of the transitionary evolution, and the one that made permanent markers the implement of choice for cards: the ballpoint pen. For cards, they were far too temperamental, especially in an in-person, ballpark situation. Too many light signatures signed in too many dark areas. Many IP signatures were signed so poorly that they look more like indentations on the cardboard rather than autographs.

We also had the (thankfully) short-lived period of the flair pen, which ran concurrent with 1960's ballpoint all the way into the 1970's era when Sharpies started cornering a nice portion of the process.

Love them or hate them, Sharpies definitely earned their place. I agree with you that a period fountain pen signature is king, but they too could be temperamental. So many variables. Sharpies and the like are the most consistent for cards, so their staying power is quite understandable.

[raulus]

My mostly worthless thoughts:

Can't say that I really care all that much, since I stay away from autographed pieces. Nothing against them. Just not my thing. We've all got to draw the line somewhere, and this is definitely one that's off my list.

But for the sellers, bully for them.

If you enjoy collecting autographed Mantle cards, then I guess the cost is higher today than it used to be. So hopefully you aren't too agitated by that possibility.

On the other hand, some part of me assumes that if people are chasing this stuff and spending all their cash on it, then it means less focus and competition for me on the stuff that I really want. Probably just wishful thinking, but if I'm looking for a silver lining, then I guess I'll focus on this.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Mantle autographed cards are not among the hobby's ultimate rarities. Some are more uncommon than others, and yes, they're exponentially more difficult to procure than their unsigned counterparts. In demand? That's always been evident, and that popularity is clearly surging.

Mantle autographs are not as common as Bob Feller autographs, but they are plentiful. If the demand increases, I'm sure someone will look at it as an opportunity to increase the existing supply (snicker, snicker).

I've got a few Mantle signatures from the late 80s, early 90s show circuit. But I'm of the opinion that if I submitted them for "authentication" they'd come back as forged (which I know they're not).

As for the price of the autographs, I was a bit surprised, but as someone mentioned, Mantle seems to be a collecting category independent of other players of that era.

I'd rather spend that type of money on locating an Urban Shocker signature than on a Mantle (which is abundantly available when compared to other signatures).

This market is just crazy.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

An important part of the transitionary evolution, and the one that made permanent markers the implement of choice for cards: the ballpoint pen. For cards, they were far too temperamental, especially in an in-person, ballpark situation. Too many light signatures signed in too many dark areas. Many IP signatures were signed so poorly that they look more like indentations on the cardboard rather than autographs.

We also had the (thankfully) short-lived period of the flair pen, which ran concurrent with 1960's ballpoint all the way into the 1970's era when Sharpies started cornering a nice portion of the process.

Love them or hate them, Sharpies definitely earned their place. I agree with you that a period fountain pen signature is king, but they too could be temperamental. So many variables. Sharpies and the like are the most consistent for cards, so their staying power is quite understandable.

Really no form of medium for autographs is going to be 100% perfect. I will say that Sharpies are the most reliable but I just can't get on board with how they look, at least on cards.

A part of me does wonder, and I'm sure they exist, the amount of cards from the 50's that were signed using fountain pen? I would think some of them exist, for players like Mantle, Mays, etc. While the pens certainly fell out of favor, I'd presume that a guy like Mantle most likely grew up using a Fountain Pen. A part of me also wonders (as I wasn't alive), would people show up to shows in the 70's and 80's and request the type of pen a player would use on their item?

[MattyC]

Several of those were mine. I thought Joe T did a great job presenting the data on them, in terms of how rare they are as compared to their unsigned counterparts— and then diving deeper into how hard it is to find a card with centering and eye appeal that also has been graced with a well placed and attractive autograph. In most cases, of the 20-50ish examples that exist for a given signed 50s Mantle, either an issue with the card or the auto results in what can best be called sub-optimal eye appeal, leaving single digits to choose from. And then most of those are held in collections.

Before I would select an example for my collection I would be sure to look at nearly all of the population to get a gauge for the general eye appeal. Some examples of the fun research:





I was certainly bummed to part with them, yet sometimes as collectors— akin to being GM of a team— we have to give up the very, very good to get the great in our clubhouse. For me, a longtime collecting goal which I never thought possible was to create this quartet pictured below and so when the chance arose I made the moves to make it happen.

[packs]

Always a fan of a strong sale. And get them in pen when I can:

[Johnny630]

The pumping trend of signed HOF's specifically Mantles have been going on now for about 6 months in major auction houses by investors, it's a trend like the cards were over the past two and a half years. Now is the time to sell these do not chase them and pay up now....they will come back down to earth give it a year or two. They were flat for years prior.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Seems like the nature of this hobby is that there always has to be one area running batshit crazy at any given time.

Didn't Mickey Mantle appear at card shows for many years? Seems weird these would be running insane, though agree with an earlier post that a well signed copy in great condition is probably pretty rare. Most were probably not taken care of well (by hobby standards).

Agree with the majority here.

Mantle is a weird auto and in line with Ruth in its unconventional value when compared to supply. Mantle and Ruth signed so much crap that it would be impossible to not find a few hundred items for sale at any time in less than an hour. However they defy the logic on pricing.

The reason I think these were more outside the box was card condition. If you were collecting in the 80s, the value of a card was brought down by a signature. This is why most examples are on poorly centered or condition cards. People had their beaters signed and the good cards in the binder.

So I agree, these are complete outliers on the condition and thus hens teeth for autograph examples.

[Hankphenom]

I never understood how the medium sharpie ever came to be the standard over the fine point sharpie. Maybe the fine is a little too thin, but the medium looks clunky as heck to my eyes. Something in between, perhaps. As for fountain pens, yes they look great but anyone old enough to have carried them to school or work and had nice shirts ruined or documents spoiled by leakage knows why they went the way of the dodo bird. Ballpoints just too unpredictable, but I guess you really have to use them on balls.

[jsfriedm]

Personally not a fan of autographed cards except in some very rare instances (would like a signed 1939 Play Ball Ted Williams - that card could use some extra decoration), but I wonder if the vintage autograph trend has legs because increasingly new vintage collectors will be people who came from modern, where they were always chasing autographed cards. If autographed Mike Trouts and Patrick Mahomes have always seemed like the holy grail, might you not maintain that mindset if your focus shifts to Mantle and Mays?

[campyfan39]

I am still of that opinion. The only cards I have signed are through the mail and that was just for the fun of it and I always had duplicates.

Originally Posted by Seven

However signed cards back when Mantle was touring the show circuit, we're not nearly as common place as now. Many collectors viewed a player signing a card as sacrilege, and people thought the signed cards were less valuable then their unsigned counterparts.

[robertsmithnocure]

Those Mantle cards really had exceptional visual appeal, but I do struggle with the Sharpie signatures. All else being the equal, I would think that vintage ballpoint or fountain pen signatures would bring a big premium, especially if it was signed near the year that the card was issued.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I am still of that opinion. The only cards I have signed are through the mail and that was just for the fun of it and I always had duplicates.

I also remember that for a long time the common wisdom was "Don't waste an autograph on a card, and don't waste a decent card getting an autograph," the theory being it would turn off both card AND autograph collectors. Wow, has that ever changed!

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Several of those were mine. I thought Joe T did a great job presenting the data on them, in terms of how rare they are as compared to their unsigned counterparts— and then diving deeper into how hard it is to find a card with centering and eye appeal that also has been graced with a well placed and attractive autograph. In most cases, of the 20-50ish examples that exist for a given signed 50s Mantle, either an issue with the card or the auto results in what can best be called sub-optimal eye appeal, leaving single digits to choose from. And then most of those are held in collections.

Before I would select an example for my collection I would be sure to look at nearly all of the population to get a gauge for the general eye appeal. Some examples of the fun research:





I was certainly bummed to part with them, yet sometimes as collectors— akin to being GM of a team— we have to give up the very, very good to get the great in our clubhouse. For me, a longtime collecting goal which I never thought possible was to create this quartet pictured below and so when the chance arose I made the moves to make it happen.

Wow wow wow. Unbelievable cards! Well Done! 👏👏

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by packs

Always a fan of a strong sale. And get them in pen when I can:

Great Card! Love the pen auto!

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

Personally not a fan of autographed cards except in some very rare instances (would like a signed 1939 Play Ball Ted Williams - that card could use some extra decoration), but I wonder if the vintage autograph trend has legs because increasingly new vintage collectors will be people who came from modern, where they were always chasing autographed cards. If autographed Mike Trouts and Patrick Mahomes have always seemed like the holy grail, might you not maintain that mindset if your focus shifts to Mantle and Mays?

This is an interesting thought process and it makes complete sense to me. As modern collectors migrate over and are used to collecting autos it makes total sense to me that they might hit the ground running chasing vintage autos.

[Snapolit1]

What I truly find inexplicable in the modern realm is that someone will pay $20,000 for a 1/1 Babe Ruth cut auto card, where you can buy a decent Babe auto and cut it out yourself if you are so inclined for half that, and that people will pay a silly amount for a "rare" relic card containing small swatches from players pants or jersey, yet have no interest in buying a compleye jersey the guy wore for the same price or not much more.

If you think PSA has a magic touch in putting cards is slabs and giving them a special number, you should see what Panini can do buy purchasing something, cutting it up, and putting in a piece of card board and slapping on it 1/1 or 1/5.

[mikecala98]

So happy I recently picked this up! I love the Exhibits signed. Pop 3 I believe.

[Snapolit1]

Awesome card. Great signature.

[Johnny630]

From Topps

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

From Topps

Lots of fakes of these out there…

[Golfpro10]

Originally Posted by mikecala98

So happy I recently picked this up! I love the Exhibits signed. Pop 3 I believe.

Nice card. Great Sig!

[Brian]

I really love the signed exhibit.

I am probably alone in liking these photo pack issues picked up last year. They are the best of all possible worlds for me--a cross between a card and a photo, with an auto. And from what I can tell, pretty low pops.

[bleeckerstreetcards]

As a 31 yr old vintage collector who grew up surrounded by and loving game used relic and autographed modern cards because both, in a way, brought me “closer” to the player, I think the interest (not sure on prices, as these are all discretionary/luxury goods subject to macro conditions) in these signed vintage cards are here to stay. As the average modern collector graduates to vintage over the coming 5, 10, 25 years, that collector has an expectation of being able to get autographed cards of their favorite players to collect.. and comparatively less of a need for “pack fresh” / high grade cards than previous generations. Curious of others thoughts

[Schlesinj]

Considering they have been beaten down with the concept of 1/1 patch autos it will be an easy transition.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Brian

I am probably alone in liking these photo pack issues picked up last year. They are the best of all possible worlds for me--a cross between a card and a photo, with an auto. And from what I can tell, pretty low pops.

Those are fabulous. Who didn't love picture packs as a kid?

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Those are fabulous. Who didn't love picture packs as a kid?

My passion for signed vintage cards stems from the fact that the player actually held the card in their hands. Such a neat aspect, especially when you find one with brilliant eye appeal (both autograph & card). For those who think the Memory Lane prices were significantly “over the top”….think again. Look at the population reports of high grade unsigned examples vs. signed subjects. There’s your answer. For the nicest signed examples, today’s retail will be tomorrow’s wholesale.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Fred

I'd rather spend that type of money on locating an Urban Shocker signature than on a Mantle (which is abundantly available when compared to other signatures).

There’s a really nice one coming to auction…

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...50068-235003.s

[T206Collector]

Love signed cards and have been collecting prewar ones for 20 years. T201s in particular look so much better with a signature!

[irv]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I was certainly bummed to part with them, yet sometimes as collectors— akin to being GM of a team— we have to give up the very, very good to get the great in our clubhouse. For me, a longtime collecting goal which I never thought possible was to create this quartet pictured below and so when the chance arose I made the moves to make it happen.

I don't blame you one bit for what you chose to do. It's a goal/dream not many of us get to see to fruition.

Originally Posted by bleeckerstreetcards

As a 31 yr old vintage collector who grew up surrounded by and loving game used relic and autographed modern cards because both, in a way, brought me “closer” to the player, I think the interest (not sure on prices, as these are all discretionary/luxury goods subject to macro conditions) in these signed vintage cards are here to stay. As the average modern collector graduates to vintage over the coming 5, 10, 25 years, that collector has an expectation of being able to get autographed cards of their favorite players to collect.. and comparatively less of a need for “pack fresh” / high grade cards than previous generations. Curious of others thoughts

I agree, and I have noticed this a lot lately with modern hockey cards which now seem to be the favorites to acquire.

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

My passion for signed vintage cards stems from the fact that the player actually held the card in their hands. Such a neat aspect, especially when you find one with brilliant eye appeal (both autograph & card). For those who think the Memory Lane prices were significantly “over the top”….think again. Look at the population reports of high grade unsigned examples vs. signed subjects. There’s your answer. For the nicest signed examples, today’s retail will be tomorrow’s wholesale.

I agree. I currently only have a couple/few signed cards/photos with my Bobby Orr card being my favorite. Knowing he personally held it and signed it is just extra special to me.

[packs]

I do agree that these particular cards were very nice and that affected pricing. I'm just not sure how much. A few hundred dollars? A thousand dollars? I don't know.

Mantle is I think as safe a bet as you can make in the post-war market. He signed millions of baseballs and photos but is much harder to get on a playing days card. There will always be the Score inserts but I think anyone would prefer a playing days Topps card. Don't think you'll ever lose your shirt buying into them.

[Bigdaddy]

I got a couple of Mickey signatures in the late 80's at card shows, and there was no way I was going to have him sign one of his treasured Topps cards. Instead, I had him sign several Perez-Steele postcards, thinking that they were much more collectible since they were numbered, limited edition and had great artwork.

I even saw Mays at a free signing at a boat and camper show and got all the autos I could carry, even one on a dollar bill when we ran out of things for him to sign. But none on Topps cards.

There was a great hesitation at the time to get nice eye-appeal cards signed. Beaters, maybe. But not the better condition ones for fear that it would decrease the value. I think for the older cards/players, that is a big reason for the premium placed on signed, high grade cards.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Love signed cards and have been collecting prewar ones for 20 years. T201s in particular look so much better with a signature!

Amazing collection!

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

My passion for signed vintage cards stems from the fact that the player actually held the card in their hands. Such a neat aspect, especially when you find one with brilliant eye appeal (both autograph & card).

That's pretty much the thing with autographs in general, right? Whatever the medium, that person actually held it while he or she penned their name.

[Schlesinj]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

There’s a really nice one coming to auction…

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...50068-235003.s

Here is a copy I picked up with Giard.

IMG_5640.jpg