Uncut Proof sheet c. 1913 with Cobb and Joe Jackson in May '24 Hunt Auctions

[packs]

Is avoiding pencil cuts not as common as I thought? I'm extremely wary of cuts in general but I thought avoiding pencil cuts was pretty common in the autograph realm.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by packs

Is avoiding pencil cuts not as common as I thought? I'm extremely wary of cuts in general but I thought avoiding pencil cuts was pretty common in the autograph realm.

Not an autograph guy, but I assume that it would be tempting, and just too easy, to change a Babe Pinelli or Babe Herman into a Babe Ruth.


Brian (let this not dissuade helpful replies)

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Not an autograph guy, but I assume that it would be tempting, and just too easy, to change a Babe Pinelli or Babe Herman into a Babe Ruth.


Brian (let this not dissuade helpful replies)

I trust this is a joke.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by packs

Is avoiding pencil cuts not as common as I thought? I'm extremely wary of cuts in general but I thought avoiding pencil cuts was pretty common in the autograph realm.

Lots of people don't avoid pencil, especially when it comes to very rare, obscure vintage players. Sometimes, you don't have much of a choice if you don't want to go another 20-30 years before even seeing another example which may or may not be more attractive.

Personally, pencil has never, ever been a deterrent if I am interested in a piece. If I'm confident in its authenticity, then I'm fine with pencil, provided that a pencil autograph would work for me in that instance. Would much rather have something signed in pencil than in taped-over ink.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Lots of people don't avoid pencil, especially when it comes to very rare, obscure vintage players. Sometimes, you don't have much of a choice if you don't want to go another 20-30 years before even seeing another example which may or may not be more attractive.

Personally, pencil has never, ever been a deterrent if I am interested in a piece. If I'm confident in its authenticity, then I'm fine with pencil, provided that a pencil autograph would work for me in that instance. Would much rather have something signed in pencil than in taped-over ink.

Not an autograph collector, but I have had some people tell me they prefer pencil for display pieces (flats logically) as there is little to no chance of fading as there is with ink. Perhaps, that is a very small segment of collectors per this thread.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Not an autograph collector, but I have had some people tell me they prefer pencil for display pieces (flats logically) as there is little to no chance of fading as there is with ink. Perhaps, that is a very small segment of collectors per this thread.

While that preference due to that logical reasoning has actually never come up in any of my conversations, it makes perfect sense.

Like Cobb's penchant for green ink, the poet John Greenleaf Whittier was known for a similar love of purple. He was much more famous many generations ago, and his autograph was widely collected and prized. He was a very willing signer and correspondent, so there still exists a ton of holographic material to this day. The items signed in purple ink were extremely susceptible to fading due to UV exposure, which ultimately faded some pieces to oblivion. If there's a twisted upside, it's that Whittier's unimportant material has really tanked in desirability in the ensuing century, and with it, much of the value. People just don't care about poets and poetry like they used to.

Emily Dickinson bucks this trend, and her holographic scraps are still coveted and expensive to this day. Hilariously, she preferred to write in pencil!

[packs]

Pencil is a great medium for the reasons listed, but my understanding and avoidance of pencil comes from not being able to tell when a pencil signature was applied. A pencil signature signed today on century old paper will have the same characteristics as a contemporary pencil signature. But when it comes to ink, applying new ink on old paper causes all kinds of flaring in the ink transfer that you don't see in pencil. Seeing a lot of flaring on a supposedly old signature is an indication it was added later and may not be original.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by packs

Pencil is a great medium for the reasons listed, but my understanding and avoidance of pencil comes from not being able to tell when a pencil signature was applied. A pencil signature signed today on century old paper will have the same characteristics as a contemporary pencil signature. But when it comes to ink, applying new ink on old paper causes all kinds of flaring in the ink transfer because it's something new on something old.

True, but that's where personal knowledge and the confidence in it has to come into play. Or, like so many new(ish) people in the hobby, one can choose to never learn anything for themselves and simply buy the slab.

[packs]

My comments were about the general rule of thumb. I'm not suggesting anything about TPG opinions or anything like that. Only that pencil can be applied to old paper and it can be difficult to determine if the signature is a day old or 100 years old.