A Call For Opinion regarding On Card Autographs.

pigskincardboard · Mar 24, 2010

Here's my question, and it's sorta a doozy. Everyone loves on-card autographs, righty?

Tell me your thoughts on an IN-CARD autograph and where it would rank with regards to oncard autographs.

Let's say the autograph was placed on a single acetate sheet that's in the middle of the card, with other acetate sheets placed over it. Also, if the player signed an acetate sheet that was placed over the actual card.

Companies would bring the 6' by 3' sheets to the players and they'd sign in the taped off area. The sheets would then be put into the production process such that the autograph wouldn't be altered or melted. Let's assume it'd just work.

Would you consider these two types of autographs to be on-cards? Is it cheating?

If a player doesn't hold the actual card that he's signing -- is it no longer worth as much?

hofautos · Mar 24, 2010

same concept as stickers.

any time the manufacturer can save tons of money by having a player sign a LOT of "something" and then affix it to the card for many years to come, and at any time during the season, the manufacturer doesn't have to sign yearly contracts.

They can get 5000 stickers signed at any time (preferably in their rookie year when they can get them for a buck a piece), then affix them to product even 5 years later.
The player never saw the card, never held it, it is impersonable and CHEAP....a total ripoff, but business smart plan....

IMO, a sticker auto is a 1/5000 regardless if it is placed on a 1/1 card...call it what you want, but i call it total trash.

pigskincardboard · Mar 24, 2010

So the problem is nothing more than, "The Player Hasn't Touched This Card."

Does this apply to mass-produced letterman where the player signs the letter, but doesn't touch the card (let's forget that they look like crap)

hofautos · Mar 24, 2010

pigskincardboard said:
So the problem is nothing more than, "The Player Hasn't Touched This Card."

Does this apply to mass-produced letterman where the player signs the letter, but doesn't touch the card (let's forget that they look like crap)

No, that is only part of it...the main issue is that the sticker, besides being aestically ugly, is known as a "CHEAP" method to obtain autos....so it several things to me:

1) CHEAP
2) Impersonal
3) 1/5000
4) UGLY
5) not same contract year

TO me stickers are like a 2001 Mickey Mantle card with no GU...not relevant

Sean_C · Mar 24, 2010

To me, it's no different than a sticker or other similar type item, and isn't a true "on-card" signature. Having said that, I much prefer "trapped" signatures like that to band-aids.

sportscardtheory · Mar 24, 2010

I always thought that they should put some kind of smooth hardening "gloss" over on-card autos so nothing will ever happen to the auto. No fading, no rub-and-re-auto.

cgilmo · Mar 24, 2010

I think the whole player touched argument is creepy. An auto is an auto just make it astetically pleasing.

schmidtfan20 · Mar 24, 2010

Its very simple, a sheet of stickers is send to the athlete and they come back with ink on them, that doesn't mean
the actual athlete signed them. All on card signatures by topps are witnessed, so when you have them in your
collection you know not only did the athlete hold the card but he signed it, not his brother, or his secretary. Isn't
that well worth it?

I only have on card autos in my personal collection, I know 100% they are legit.

Kevin

angelsrockies4ever · Mar 24, 2010

cgilmo said:
I think the whole player touched argument is creepy. An auto is an auto just make it astetically pleasing.

Thank you.

hofautos · Mar 24, 2010

cgilmo said:
I think the whole player touched argument is creepy. An auto is an auto just make it astetically pleasing.

i agree if it is "embedded" in some way, they look a little better, but "STILL" a sticker.
besides a few rookies where you dont have a choice, i think i only have 4 stickers in my collection, and for reason (also all embedded)

1) my only logo
2) my only button
3) Griffey's only mariners patch auto (until UD lawsuit set)
4) still haven't found anything nicer for omar (if you got something, let me know!!)

pigskincardboard · Mar 25, 2010

Very nice cards, but I'm not talking about a sticker inside the card.

I'm talking about a layer of the actual card having the autograph with the top-layer being some chrome or acetate technology. The autograph would literally be trapped between two slices of the card, but anchored right to the card.

The second suggestion was that the player signs a card sized piece of acetate -- essentially a giant sticker, that'd contain various highlights -- Like Gold lettering, or shading, or something.

This would then be combined with the other two sections of the card to form a single card. It would honestly appear as though the player signed the actual completed card, but instead would've just signed a giant printing sheet of acetate a couple hundred times.

pigskincardboard · Mar 25, 2010

schmidtfan20 said:
Its very simple, a sheet of stickers is send to the athlete and they come back with ink on them, that doesn't mean
the actual athlete signed them. All on card signatures by topps are witnessed, so when you have them in your
collection you know not only did the athlete hold the card but he signed it, not his brother, or his secretary. Isn't
that well worth it?

I only have on card autos in my personal collection, I know 100% they are legit.

Kevin

All of the UFC shots that topps' tweets appear to have pictures of them just signing books of stickers.

I think Topps says that they witness, rather than are just guaranteed, the player signing on all the cards that I have. That was the one thing I noticed between Topps & UD.

mwheeler27 · Mar 25, 2010

pigskincardboard said:
I'm talking about a layer of the actual card having the autograph with the top-layer being some chrome or acetate technology. The autograph would literally be trapped between two slices of the card, but anchored right to the card.

The second suggestion was that the player signs a card sized piece of acetate -- essentially a giant sticker, that'd contain various highlights -- Like Gold lettering, or shading, or something.

This would then be combined with the other two sections of the card to form a single card. It would honestly appear as though the player signed the actual completed card, but instead would've just signed a giant printing sheet of acetate a couple hundred times.

I agree with others in this thread. If the card itself is NOT signed, then any other method is equivalent to today's stickers.

Anytime you can sign something other than the card, and that something can be inserted onto, or into a card in the future, (even 5 to 10 years or more in the future), it sucks and shouldn't be done.

ChasHawk · Mar 25, 2010

Barely one step above a sticker to me. Besides, it's been done.

!BpGUB1wCGk~$(KGrHqMOKjkEu,Y6OlrWBLp890gFJw~~_12.jpg

!Bgse3y!!2k~$(KGrHqEH-C8EsLKKYYHZBLGTij)kn!~~_12.jpg

No different than this kind of stuff.

!BYnQ-3w!2k~$(KGrHgoH-CgEjlLl1Ej9BKieuyPsb!~~_12.jpg

cgilmo · Mar 25, 2010

some of you guys are way too picky

with the way the industry currently is, you can't do everything on card

there has to be some sort of compromise

kentuckyderby · Mar 25, 2010

If I cannot smell the player's scent, I don't want it

saferseas · Mar 25, 2010

I honestly wish there was more clear acetate stuff in baseball. I love how it looks. You see plenty of it in Hockey cards, but not really in baseball anymore. And, with Topps at the helm, we probably won't see any of it....just more of that ugly holograph sticker garbage (the exception being bowman/chrome, of course).

Raymond · Mar 25, 2010

cgilmo said:
some of you guys are way too picky

with the way the industry currently is, you can't do everything on card

there has to be some sort of compromise

I stopped collecting because I only wanted on card autographs, and they were no longer being produced.

I guess that's a compromise.

For the price of cards today, they should be able to give us a quality product.

For me, this just looks better...

That said, I do have a bunch of Sweet Spot autographs which are fancy band-aids (although the 2001 set (personal fav) is technically on card.

hofautos · Mar 25, 2010

cgilmo said:
some of you guys are way too picky

with the way the industry currently is, you can't do everything on card

there has to be some sort of compromise

I agree with Raymond. There shouldn't be any compromise. Auto's are either a "INSERT" or "HIGH END PRODUCT", and as such should be a higher cost to the manufacturer and produced for that PRODUCT ITSELF, not mass produced. Collectors who give in to this method of mass produced autos are ignorant IMO. Sorry if you fit in that category, but that is my personal opinion.

That is why the market is flooded with stickers, because collectors are ignorant to the manufacturers cheap mass producing methodologies and have continued paying high prices, and accepted their crap. That is also the main reason that autos have been devalued.

cgilmo · Mar 25, 2010

there HAS to be a compromise

companies only have so many windows to get stuff signed, and they cant possibly have everything ready at once

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

A Call For Opinion regarding On Card Autographs.

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Log in