Alteration Debate: 1997 UD Griffey Patch Card
 

On Griffey Facebook group there is currently a debate about the iconic 1997 UD Griffey patch card. A collector is on the hunt for 24 of them, and he is going to send them into private signings and have them auto'd. It's about a 50/50 split whether this should happen with this card, and whether this is classified as an alteration. I have no feeling about it. When patch cards first started coming out in the late 90s, and I had moral outrage about cutting up Babe Ruth bats and jerseys. But eventually I developed a ce la vie attitude.

What do you all think?

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

Were some of the originals issued with a signature and the issue is that these may be confused for those? Otherwise I can't see a problem if someone wants to get his card signed.

Alteration, no.
There are people who don't want to see non-auto 1/1s signed, but for unnumbered patch cards, whatever.

For historical significance it is one of the first jersey patch cards ever created - with Gwynn and Rey Ordonez. As far a I know the card was not issued autographed. The argument is that the limited print run should necessitate retaining original state. Others are arguing about buybacks, etc. As is, it's pushing $1500 or more.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e75f81dc67.jpg

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

I can't see how it's an alteration. That said, I'd rather own that card in its original state.

I mean I suppose that technically having a card signed is altering it, but I cannot fathom why getting ones cards autographed by the athlete on them would cause distress to any reasonable person.

It seems a bit crazy to lay out 36K for cards to get autographed.
But whoever it is will probably do it.

To resell? To make some crazy display?

Not what I'd do.

And it's sort of funny that if I write on a card it's altered, if the pictured person writes on it it's a wonderful thing....

He finally uploaded a picture of the start of his journey. $36k + (24 × $300 auto fee). $300 was what TriStar requested for their May signing.

Like I said, I got over it long ago when they started destroying historical memorabilia. Adding a signature to a card doesn't bother me. But 50% of people were arguing this card has such historical significance to the hobby that it should be retained in its original state. Do others on this board have that same feeling?https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...090628cb51.jpg

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

I'd never heard of this card before, so I have doubts about its historical significance. But then again, this is a pre-war message board (even if it's the modern side of it), so I'm probably not in the right demographic here.

No. I can't imagine objecting to an autographed card. Assuming we could be certain it's genuine, an autographed Wagner (a card with indisputably more historical significance) would be awesome.

It's the first year they introduced the relic card, so for collectors who chase after the relic/auto/#'d cards this is a big deal. To Griffey collectors this is peg 1 on the patch card database.

In baseball, it was a three card set with Gwynn and Rey Ordonez. So Griffey obviously carries the weight.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

I think they look awesome signed. Collecting is all about having fun and what makes you all warm and happy inside.

And now that he has 24 of them signed. Did he have Mr. Griffey number them? If not anyone can buy one or 2 and have them signed and ruin his player number run..( on the other hand big Griffey fan with the funds I am sure he likes the display) But if enough get signed eventually the unsigned versions will outpace the signed ones.
J

Reasonable people don't collect cards though, so . . .

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Well, I am of the opinion that the cards are his and his to do what he wishes. If he wants them autographed, so what, more power to him.

I cannot see a downside to his decision to do what he wishes with his cards.

YMMV

Butch Turner

You don't have to roast me like that :)

+ 1

Wow I didn’t realize how much these sell for now! I regret not picking one up years ago.

I just looked and there is a signed one on eBay right now. Will be interesting to see where it ends.

No skin in this game, but I believe those that feel strongly about them remaining as originally issued are free to acquire them unsigned and maintain them as such, otherwise they can Shut The F*** Up!

Who peed in your cornflakes?

Expressing an opinion is just that. No need to be "that guy" about it.

I don't understand the debate. People get cards signed every day. Sometimes they are common cards and sometimes they're super rare. While your preference might be for a super-rare card to be maintained in it's original shape, people can do what they want, and usually do. I thought for a second the story was that the guy was collecting these in order to make one big patch out of the jersey bits or something, which really would destroy them, but if he's just getting them signed then I don't get what the big deal is.

As to calling it a historic artifact or whatever, yes it was one of the first baseball jersey cards (and baseball wasn't even the first sport to have them), but there were plenty of these made, more than were packed out because they were used as replacements for other things. I had a Frank Robinson 500 HR Club POH card that had something wrong with the surface. I sent it in to be replaced and was told they couldn't but sent me the Griffey jersey card instead. I'd heard from a couple people at the time that they also got Griffey jersey cards as replacements as well.

I just wonder if there would be such a debate if the target was Rey Ordonez.

While I don't necessarily understand the strong, impassioned tone, I do tend to agree with the sentiment.

The 50% of Griffey collectors who are torn up about this should have put their money where their hearts were, purchased all available copies, and sent them to be entombed in the PWCC vault for perpetual, unaltered safe keeping. This would have ensured the cards remained in their original historical state.

(Oh the irony...to suggest that the solution to keeping them unaltered would be to send them to PWCC! LOL)

If they are trying to buy up every copy and have them all signed I guess that could warrant some pushback if there would be no unsigned ones left. Unsure from the OPs post if that is what they are doing or not. If there are plenty of copies of this card then it shouldn't matter.