Autographed Cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert

Should not a card that is autographed by the player raise the value of the card? Or is it that card collectors are purists and feel that an autographed card downgrades the value because they want the purist card they can find in a complete unaltered condition. So then an autograph would be considered an alteration? I have seen some T206's with autos sell for some nice $$'s on EBAY. I was looking at the REA section with those amazing sets of 40's and 50's cards all with autos and blown away at the task someone went through to accomplish that feat. I only wish that PSA would give a grade to the card instead of the "Authentic" stamp they put on every card.

[Archive]

Posted By: jackgoodman

I've found that card collectors collect cards and autograph collectors collect autographs - and rarely do the twain meet. That's not to say there aren't exceptions, like a complete card set autographed or a highly sought-after signature desired in any format.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Whichever side the purists take, these cards will sell for more when autographed by the player and encapsulated by PSA/DNA.

[Archive]

Posted By: qualitycards.com

To some purists a card with a signature devalues the card since the card now has writing on it. Prior to Mantle's death I saw many good deals on his late 50's Topps cards that were signed. The Mantle card collector or set collector didn't want a sig on it and the Mantle autograph collector would rather have a signed ball or a photo to display. So the signature added little value.
It would be interesting to check the values of pre war vintage cards and see how much of a premium a Tris Speaker signed T206 or a 1933 Goudey Heinie Manush would fetch...jay

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

For autograph collectors, certain issues are better for autographs than others. For example, the 1954 Bowmans are often not so hot as the signatures often don't show up so well on the dense fronts. On the other hand, some cheapo 1970s-80s commerative sets will show up regularly in the autograph section of a MastroNet or Mike Gutierrez Auction. This is because a Hank Greenberg or Carl Hubbell signature shows up great on the cheap black & white image, even if the card itself is worth 2 cents.

Just as one card collector specializes in 1970s Topps and another in Old Judges, baseball autograph collectors have varying tastes. One autograph collector would love to have a Mantle signed 1953 Bowman Color, while another has no interest in cards as they're too small to display.

I add that I think a kid getting his bubblegum card autographed by his favorite player was a legitimate and wholesome use of the card. I'm sure that the President of Topps, the Commisioner of Major League Baseball and the PTA would have approved.

[Archive]

Posted By: William Brumbach

I think that it varies and depends on a case by case basis. In the last two or three years I have started collecting autographed cards. I am over the half-way mark on a signed 1953 Topps set and also like to pick up '50, '53' and '55 Bowman as well as the occasional '52 Topps.

Most signed cards are of lower grade, rarely do you see something like a PSA 8 signed Warren Spahn or the like. Most signed vintage cards that are slabbed top out at about a 5 or so depending upon the set. Most often the value of a signed card is based upon the death of the player relative to the issue of the card than anything else. For instance, my 1953 Topps set needs a Howie Fox autograph. Not even worthy of mention to the even most ardent Phillies or Reds fan, Howie Fox has become a minor obsession for me. He owned his own bar in Texas and in 1955 he was stabbed to death in an altercation at his place. So there is a two year window that he had to sign a 1953 Topps card and as such an authentic signed copy will probably push the $500 mark when it comes up for sale. For me it is fascinating, for others it's sheer folly, like so many aspects of this hobby.

So, a high grade 1952 Topps Mantle signed might bring less in sale than an unsigned copy. There is a signed '52 Mantle in the current Masto auction in addition to the REA that has just began. I don't know how much an unsigned copy would sell for versus the signed ones currently available but they are worth keeping an eye on if anyone is interested in price discrepancies.

PSA and I think GAI do assign grades to signed cards in addition to the authentication level, it is at the behest of the submitter whether or not to authenticate with or without a grade. My impression with the sets in the Edwards auction is that a select group were authenticated specifically for the sake of the auction.

It all comes down to style and preference. I am going to make a run at the '53 Robinson and Paige cards, and am happy that they were separated out from the rest of the set. And in my opinion the signed Mayo Plug Duffy is down right gorgeous, but others might scoff at the whole idea.

To each their own I guess.

Not sure if I answered your question though...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Drum

I have collected both cards and autographed cards for years. I have auto'd cards ranging from T206 to 2005 Topps. My experience has been that the actual value of the card has little to do with what will be paid for an auto'd card. Case in point, I bought an auto'd '48 Bowman Musial from a dealer a few years ago who had 5 different Musials to pick from including a Red Heart, Bowman, etc. All were priced within $25 of each other and priced according to the perceived quality of the auto (Sharpie, ink, clear, run off side, smudged, etc.). I believe that there is a difference in prices realized for cards that are vintage signed; an ink signed '51 Bowman as opposed to a Sharpie signed '51 Bowman gottent through the mail or at a show in the 80's-90's. The difference is not great but is there and is driven I believe by auto'd set builders. The auto'd cards price is driven primarily by the scarcity of the auto, whether the player is deceased, a HOF, etc. Some notable exceptions do exist such as '52 Topps high numbers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Drum

One other thing, there is an appreciable difference between prices realized for "real" cards as opposed to Collector's issues. I would expect that an authentic signed "33 Goudey Frank Frisch would command a premium over say a 1960 Golden Press of The Fordham Flash.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I collect modern photographs. For a limited original photograph by a famous photographer, it is highly desirable and will raise the value if photo is signed by the photographer (In part because it shows that the photo was personally approved by its photographer). The difference is that the signature is almost never found or wanted on the image area. The signature will most often be found on the back, though often below the image on the front border. For the collector and photographer, the image is the thing of importance.

Even if they were willing to sign a baseball or magazine for you, many famous photographers would refuse to sign the image area of one of their original photos.


At more of a tangent, there was well known high end art dealer of original prints and paintings of folks like Picasso and Monet. Comparing the buying of a Picasso painting signed by Picasso and a poster reprint of the painting with the poster autographed by Picasso, she said the former was purchasing art while the latter was purchasing an autograph.