Quote:
Originally Posted by JRS123490
I meant more generic photos. Like the common guys. Older guys that are uncommon on photos like Lombardi will most always do well.
|
There are tons of generic signed photos out there. Bob Feller died a decade ago and the price for a signed Feller photo has not moved. Why? Because Feller was a prolific signer. He signed at every piggly wiggly, car dealership, museum opening in just about every state. Feller was a great guy, affable and a true ambassador for the game but his signature is not in short supply. Jim Palmer is the new Feller.
Value wise a single signed baseball is worth more than a signed photo. A signed bat even higher.
https://www.psacard.com/smrpriceguid...autographs/177
I would have thought that a signed photograph of prewar players would be worth more than a signed ball. Players of that era likely signed more baseballs than photographs. I have seen people bring photographs to a game but in that era? I guess equipment will always rank higher than photographs.
Signed cards - I am in the camp that a signature defaces the value the card. It is a small niche within the hobby. I marvel at the collector on this board who is trying to complete a signed 1987 Topps set. Again, scarcity. Fewer collectors get cards signed. If demand for signed cards is on the rise with limited supply, prices increase. I just can't drop $130 for Cal Ripken to sign a card.
I just can't bring myself to start getting baseballs signed again. I have a few bats but collecting bats is a storage problem, I don't want to manage. Plus with tiered pricing it is costly to get bats signed.