Why are pencil autographs from the pre-1950s era so disrespected by collectors?

[mr2686]

Actually, I think the main reason is authentication. It's a little harder to determine an authentic pencil autograph just due to the nature of pencil...not impossible, just a little harder. Also, with ink you can narrow down when a certain type of pen (ballpoint, sharpie, etc) could have been used. Not so with pencil.

[HRBAKER]

I also think there is more of a natural sense of "permanence" to an ink autograph rightly or wrongly. I know I would much prefer fountain pen, then pen, then pencil.

[perezfan]

I think some collectors (perhaps falsely) assume that pencil is erasable, so it is not as permanent a medium. I think many view ink as being a more stable and long-term representation. I have never had anything written in ink fade, but have sure read lots of stories about it here...

So perhaps pencil isn't so bad... as long as you keep those erasers far away from your prized autos!

Could it also be that many collectors just think that the ink is more visually pleasing and attractive to look at? Seems like an over-simplification, but it may hold true...

Edited to say that Jeff beat me to the point with his more concise post!

[GoldenAge50s]

I got this Paul Waner auto in mid-'50's--in pencil!

What could be more beautiful?

[David Atkatz]

Here's my pencil beauty:

[HexsHeroes]

.

I personally think it's not so much about disrespect, but about which is more aesthetically appealing. I rarely find that the boldness of a pencil signature is anywhere as strong as that of a blue or black ink signature. How many collectors would tend to gravitate towards a nice, signed, white baseball, versus a similarly signed toned or offwhite ball. How many of our card collecting mates would gravitate towards a card with bold colors or clean borders and surfaces, versus one with lighter tones, or dirtier surfaces. Given a choice, I think most of us would prefer the more attractive choice.

That said, I know of many collectors who pass on all items signed in either red or green fountain pen ink. Too unusual, and not appealing they say.

For me, it comes down to a combination of the scarcity of the autograph, and the price. The scarcer (sp?) the autograph, the more open I am both to the medium signed on, and the instrument used to sign the autograph.

[Jerry42]

As to my love of pencil autographs from the 1940s-early 1950s, I should add that as a kid in those years, I brought a pencil to every game with my lined, small note-pad, and the pencil autograph reminds me of those experiences. And for me, that's what collecting is all about. So, although I have nothing against a Jackie Robinson autograph in pen, I like the pencil, especially because of the price reduction. And no matter what anyone thinks, those pencil autographs last -- better than some of my ink autographs exposed to light on my walls.

I also like the flavor of the times, and don't care about white balls and small wrinkles in cards (although I do keep my eye on value).

[yanks12025]

Here's members of the 1936 yankees including Joe DiMaggio in pencil.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Here's my pencil beauty:

Boy David, that is SWEET ! And you'll never have to worry about it fading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my lone lead signature...

mickeymantlePSA9.jpg

[HRBAKER]

Not my lone pencil one but my favorite I think. David that Gehrig is a thing of beauty.

[T206Collector]

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Here's my pencil beauty:

F ME, that's a beaut David!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd erase the "Nick" and write in "David". Better yet, just save the erasing and cut out the "Nick" part...then you'd really have something special there

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

F ME, that's a beaut David!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd erase the "Nick" and write in "David". Better yet, just save the erasing and cut out the "Nick" part...then you'd really have something special there

+1

[chaddurbin]

missed out on this good thread the 1st go round. agreed would never erase any personalized inscription. i'm one of those who don't mind personal inscriptions, even if i'm the farthest-looking from an "otto".

great gehrig sig from david, but does the "nick" look out of place to anybody else? i don't know gehrig's handwriting but the nick just look odd when you compare to the "best wishes, lou gehrig" part. if you'd told me nick wrote in "nick" there himself i would believe it.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

F ME, that's a beaut David!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd erase the "Nick" and write in "David". Better yet, just save the erasing and cut out the "Nick" part...then you'd really have something special there

Nick's my son's name. One day, it will be his.
(Not that it's not a good idea...)