Original Photos / Type I photos and Autographs

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

+1 - Eloquently said, Lance!

I +1 on Scott's +1... Is that even legal?

[doug.goodman]

Lance, that's the best analogy ever.
Doug

[mr2686]

Add me to the agree pile. You could always have a Type 1 matted and framed along with a sigmed ball or important game ticket. That looks nice and doesn't ruin your expensive photo.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I agree with Lance, one appeals to autograph collectors the other to photo collectors. I don't think the two make a good mix/match.

[packs]

I think it would depend on the player. Guys like Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Stan Musial and Ernie Banks, players who will have type I photos from their glory days, I think would be very attractive to collectors of both photos and autographs. If you could find a Type I photo of Hank in his Negro Leagues uniform and get it signed by him, I think the photo would retain its appeal to both ends of the collecting spectrum.

[drc]

I think you will get opinions for and against, but you can do what you want and think is a good idea.

I also think it's true that autograph and photograph collectors can be two different sets of people.

Though I'm sure even future idle autograph collectors will find significance in the photos being originals not reprints.

[Frozen in Time]

I tend to agree but in my experience a modern auto on a vintage Type I photo does not affect the price and in some cases is a definite plus for the buyer knowing that the player actually held the vintage photo in his hands.

Type I photos with period signatures often command lots more money - especially rookie years.

[doug.goodman]

I for one am a big fan of photos but, I have zero interest in a photo with an autograph.

Similarly, I have no interest in having autographs on anything that I collect, programs, cards, supplements, etc.

This is just a personal preference, having nothing to do with any issues regarding authenticity.

Doug