Does anyone have an issue with buying "sloppy" autographs?
 

While I would categorize myself as a card collector first, I would say I've passively accrued a decent amount of autographed balls, pictures and things in-between throughout my time in the hobby. One thing I've noticed, and even discussed with people on the board, is that nowadays, with penmanship going by the wayside, there are very few signatures that are aesthetically pleasing.

The greats of the past need little introduction, hell even as late as the 90's and Early 2000s have nice signatures. Players like Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Griffey Junior, Mariano Rivera, Chipper Jones, all still have nice signatures.

Nowadays? I wouldn't mind owning a ball signed by Mike Trout or Bryce Harper, but good god, their John Hancock is awful. Trout is barely above a scribble. And While sure a part of me says, "no signed ball collection is complete without one" I can't bring myself to spend 500-700 Dollars on something so god awful. I understand he signs thousands of them, but it's his name, you'd think he'd have a little bit of pride when it comes to signing it! Does anyone else feel this sort of way? Autograph collectors please chime in.

For about 10 years I had season tickets to the Colo Spgs Sky Sox and collected close to 4k of autographs of many PCL and MLB players. Many were signed nice and many should have been doctors with the way they ‘signed’ their names.

The older coaches and managers were hit and miss too.

Cheers,

B. T.

In the 1990's, the majority of players' attitudes and their autographs really seemed to go downhill. I lost all interest in the modern game after the strike which cost baseball an entire World Series, and I only kept collecting the modern players' autographs out of habit. It was increasingly more annoying to have to put these scribbles into my collection just because I was attempting to obtain an autograph of every MLB player in history. At some point in the late 1990's, I set a date of 2000 to be the last one in which I would still want every player's autograph who debuted that season. I haven't regretted my decision to quit following baseball and to cease with the infernal scribbling.

People paying these current athletes three or four figures for their feeble attempts to test out a marker is laughable to me, but if it makes them happy, then so be it. For this kind of money, the least the players can do is learn how to legibly write their names in proper cursive. I don't care if they haven't been taught in schools; let their agents teach them, or hire a tutor! It's a business transaction; try doing something to make it more worth the buying party's time. Scribble all you want when you're not being paid, but when you are, put in a little effort, please.

+1000000000000000000

I give all lefties a free pass.

Koufax had a couple of funny ones on his horizontal cards, 55 and 56

I would be willing to wager that the sloppiness of autographs is correlated to the increase in demand over time. Not to say that is an excuse, but there are now folks who either as a full-time job, or to supplement their income, chase down players at the ballparks, hotels, restaurants and anywhere they are in public.

And it doesn't just start in the majors, it's pervasive in the minors also.

Fair observation. One has to think though, the amount of autographs players like Mays, Mantle, Williams, DiMaggio, etc signed through the years. All were pretty prominent on the show circuit as well, and their signatures were always pretty and crisp.

As mentioned above, it all started to really head downhill when schools stopped teaching cursive. :mad:

It’s a generational thing. Not only athletes aren’t signing a readable name now. I’m 32 years old and all the people my age and younger have an autograph who isn’t readable. It’s like a form of art I guess

Never could identify this baseball. 1 player or 2 players. Never purchased a signed baseball, so this was signed at a Michigan card show in the 80’s or 90’s.

Here is great signature .

The one thing that no one here seems to realize is that the abomination a contemporary athlete calls his "autograph" is NOT his signature. He doesn't sign contracts, legal documents, checks, etc., anything like that. Today's athlete is paranoid of his actual signature becoming public--identity theft, and other scams--and so makes up an "autograph." It is quite purposely illegible.
It is also, AFAIC, worthless.

This is a fascinating comment! Is this widely known among serious collectors who collect modern players' signatures? It suggests the possibility that somewhere out there there exists a signature of Miguel Cabrera that an english speaking human could actually read.

Imagine the value 50 years from now of a truly legible autograph from a hall-of-fame player of today! Can you name any specific players where you've seen the differences?