Edd Roush and Smoky Joe Wood Cards

[dennis]

back in the 70s/80s getting vintage cards signed was like it was ruining the cards value. remember card collectors are not always autograph collectors and vice versa, so lots of autograph collectors had reprints signed rather than the genuine card. lots of vintage cards that were signed pre 90s were beaters.

[HRBAKER]

The oldest card I have signed of Edd Roush is a 1928 Exhibit. I am sertain that I have seen a signed E120 before. edit: I'm also certain as well.

[Jason Carota]

That Tribune Wood is amazing, Todd. Thanks for posting it.


Although not really a card, Smokey Joe is also featured in the M101-2 set:

[nolemmings]

m101-6

[Brian Van Horn]

Erick beat me to the D381s, but I'll put up a 1914 and a 1915:

[frohme]

No Roush in the 207's, but a little Wood, well, ...

[sox1903wschamp]

Just adding to the "Smokey" parade. My M116 Wood

[JamesGallo]

Both the Wood and Roush card in the Cracker Jack sets are tough. Roush is a high number and only in the 1915 set. As such I would doubt anyone would get these signed as even low grade examples now sell for a few hundred.

The game cards would and should have been more available and certainly worth a lot less but Roush isn't in them. I happen to have a WG4 Wood and a Cracker Jack Roush for sale :-)


I know when I was getting a lot of stuff signed in the 1990s I would find something other then a vintage card as I felt they were two different things and there were enough reprint cards that would hold a signature very nicely.

As stated there is a huge difference in value between a vintage signature and modern one.

James G

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by dennis

back in the 70s/80s getting vintage cards signed was like it was ruining the cards value. remember card collectors are not always autograph collectors and vice versa, so lots of autograph collectors had reprints signed rather than the genuine card. lots of vintage cards that were signed pre 90s were beaters.

You know, I went through a phase in the 1980s where I believed that maintaining the card's purity meant no signature allowed. It is strange for me to now see that I have come full circle -- I prefer signed T206s to an unsigned example. I think it only adds to the beauty and character of the card. It is really hard for me to think of it as destructive. Perhaps it is in relation to the scarcity of the signature. I mean, you don't want a Mantle autograph on a 52 Mantle because his signature is so widespread. Right?

[yanksfan09]

A Couple Rare ones (not to scale)....

[dennis]

a 52 topps mantle with a vintage 50s mantle signature, that would be quite a nice item!