Original Photos / Type I photos and Autographs

[CharleyBrown]

Hello all,

I was curious as to what the general consensus is regarding getting original photos / type I photos signed? Would the autograph take away from the photo, or would it add to it? I know to each his own, but I was curious as to thoughts of memorabilia collectors that are more advanced/knowledgeable than I am (in terms of pros and cons).

After taking my son to get pictures signed by Whitey Ford (one of my grandfather's best friends as a kid), and Juan Marichal (first Dominican HOF - my son is half-Dominican), I've thought about expanding my collecting focus from Jackie Robinson cards and HOF RCs to Signed 8x10s and unsigned original photos. I prefer photos to baseballs/bats due to limited storage and display space.

I've heard that original / type I photos are generally far more appealing than later prints/reprints of photos, and are obviously more expensive. Aside from cost, however, are there any negatives to getting them signed?

Thanks in advance for the input.

[thecatspajamas]

My experience from a selling standpoint has been that there are vintage photo collectors, and there are autograph collectors, and typically having a vintage photo signed will remove it from one camp of interest to the other. I don't see the two areas of interest merging much unless the signature is also vintage as in a nice fountain pen signature from the athlete's playing days. I don't usually see the autograph collectors paying a premium for a sharpie-signed vintage photo over what they would a sharpie-signed modern reprint of that same photo, but I have heard from plenty of photo collectors that they have no interest whatsoever in signed photos, regardless of how old the photo itself is.

That said though, it's really a matter of preference. If you're collecting autographs and prefer the look of a vintage photo signed by a player over a modern print signed by the same guy, then it's up to you whether it's worth spending the extra dough for that vintage original photo. Something else to consider would be having a modern reprint of the vintage photo made for signing while keeping the original "unmarred".

Personally, I would liken it to collecting player autographs on $20 bills vs. collecting autographs on $100 bills. Sure, the signed $100 bill will be more desirable, but is it worth spending 5x as much for the material upgrade? Just my 2 cents...

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

My experience from a selling standpoint has been that there are vintage photo collectors, and there are autograph collectors, and typically having a vintage photo signed will remove it from one camp of interest to the other. I don't see the two areas of interest merging much unless the signature is also vintage as in a nice fountain pen signature from the athlete's playing days. I don't usually see the autograph collectors paying a premium for a sharpie-signed vintage photo over what they would a sharpie-signed modern reprint of that same photo, but I have heard from plenty of photo collectors that they have no interest whatsoever in signed photos, regardless of how old the photo itself is.

That said though, it's really a matter of preference. If you're collecting autographs and prefer the look of a vintage photo signed by a player over a modern print signed by the same guy, then it's up to you whether it's worth spending the extra dough for that vintage original photo. Something else to consider would be having a modern reprint of the vintage photo made for signing while keeping the original "unmarred".

Personally, I would liken it to collecting player autographs on $20 bills vs. collecting autographs on $100 bills. Sure, the signed $100 bill will be more desirable, but is it worth spending 5x as much for the material upgrade? Just my 2 cents...

+1 - Eloquently said, Lance!

[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

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by 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

+1, was never interested in autographs.

To slightly differ with Doug, with recent controversy about authentication, I am happy my collecting focus was elsewhere.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

+1, was never interested in autographs.

To slightly differ with Doug, with recent controversy about authentication, I am happy my collecting focus was elsewhere.

Actually Jeff, you and I don't differ in regards to this issue.

I feel like I whine too much about grading / authentication being evil and bad for our hobby, on this forum and another that I am involved in, so I edited my own comments prior to posting so as to avoid going that direction.

Oops! I did it again.

Doug