Sticker Auto vs. On Card Auto

spcollector · Jun 15, 2010

Guys just wanted to get some thoughts on how much collectors value on card autos vs. sticker autos? Do any collectors simply not collect sticker autos because they are not on card? Does anyone think that the value of an on card auto should be greater then a sticker auto? Any thoughts...

jswaykos · Jun 15, 2010

Sticker autos are lame, but mostly in the sense that a player signs, say, 5,000 stickers, and they're 'released' across various sets across various years, some more "rare" than others. Yet the stickers all come from the same place.

This is more a complaint against serial numbering, I guess, but I much prefer on-card autos, as I'm sure do 99.99% of everyone who collects baseball cards.

clarkfan · Jun 15, 2010

I would assume everyone would prefer on card autos, but sometimes, a player doesn't have an on card autograph, so we're force into buying a cut/sticker/hologram. Also, if a person was trying to get the lowest price autograph they could, technically, they'd have to prefer hologram/sticker autos, but I would say everyone would agree on card autographs are better.

Sly · Jun 15, 2010

At the end of the day, to me, an auto is an auto.

Of course, I'd probably put a premium on an on-card auto, because most of the time they look nicer. But, some sets are designed FOR sticker autos, which I'm fine with.

My biggest issue is when a sticker auto is just slapped on a card, and there is no designated area for it that fits with the card design. I'd also prefer Topps to do away with the ol' Silver Sticker, because often times it looks tacky...but I doubt that'll happen.

jswaykos · Jun 15, 2010

Sly said:
At the end of the day, to me, an auto is an auto.

Of course, I'd probably put a premium on an on-card auto, because most of the time they look nicer. But, some sets are designed FOR sticker autos, which I'm fine with.

My biggest issue is when a sticker auto is just slapped on a card, and there is no designated area for it that fits with the card design. I'd also prefer Topps to do away with the ol' Silver Sticker, because often times it looks tacky...but I doubt that'll happen.

Ha, I actually don't like the clear stickers. It looks tacky, like it's signed on a piece of tape. You can kinda see that it's there, which makes it worse. If it's going to be visible, may as well go with shiny, reflective foil.

cgilmo · Jun 15, 2010

I think that stickers can be well done

brouthercard · Jun 15, 2010

I don't have any sticker autos in my personal collection and refuse to purchase any for my personal collection.

In other words, if the card has a sticker auto, I don't consider that card personal collection worthy.

I may make an exception if that card is the best first year card of a player available, ie a sterling red heyward 1/1 auto or jay bruce superfractor 1/1 auto, though I wouldn't be interested in those anyways.

rico08 · Jun 15, 2010

The design is key for personally, and the problem with sticker autographs is the majority of them are ugly (or on foil stickers). I wouldn't put a premium on on-card necessarily but I do generally like them better than stickers.

TBTwinsFan · Jun 15, 2010

For me, an auto is an auto. I used to only have on-cards when I was a kid, and I thought the stickers looked cool. Sometimes it is the easiest way to get an auto. I like them when they are done nicely and not just slapped on there. That makes me mad when the sticker is off-center... You can also get more creative with stickers and put them where you want. That may not be the case with hard signed cards. I know a Micheal Turner collector where he bought a booklet card of Turner where he signed the outside instead of the inside where they wanted him too.

some more "rare" than others

This used to puzzle me too. Actually, the CARD is rarer and NOT the autograph. I never liked parallel signed cards because an auto is an auto and the only thing that changed was the color of the edge of the card. I have since really liked parallels (especially Bowman) because it adds diversity. You pay for the item. The autograph is the bonus

Fandruw25 · Jun 15, 2010

An autograph is an autograph whether it is on card or it is a sticker. I don't really care if it's on card or not as long as the card design fits the autograph.

lisu · Jun 15, 2010

I like on card auto's the best. I don't like sticker autos!

MOFNY · Jun 15, 2010

I prefer the on-card, but I rarely have quarrels with stickers.

matfanofold · Jun 15, 2010

My problem with sticker auto's are not that they look bad, although some do, but more so about the nature of the collectable. When I hold an on card auto card, I know the player in question actually had this card in front of him, possibly in his hands, and looked right at it as he penned his Hancock. With sticker auto's, I just do not get the same feeling. They just blow through sheets of stickers, and have no idea about how or when they are going to be used. Some employee in a office is tearing stickers off a sheet, and placing them(usually cockeyed) on a card that otherwise has no significance, other than the sticker.

To me, sticker auto's are just a step above thoes horrible on-card cut auto's they cut and paste in a goofey looking frame card.

jswaykos · Jun 15, 2010

matfanofold said:
My problem with sticker auto's are not that they look bad, although some do, but more so about the nature of the collectable. When I hold an on card auto card, I know the player in question actually had this card in front of him, possibly in his hands, and looked right at it as he penned his Hancock. With sticker auto's, I just do not get the same feeling. They just blow through sheets of stickers, and have no idea about how or when they are going to be used. Some employee in a office is tearing stickers off a sheet, and placing them(usually cockeyed) on a card that otherwise has no significance, other than the sticker.

To me, sticker auto's are just a step above thoes horrible on-card cut auto's they cut and paste in a goofey looking frame card.

This sums up my feelings pretty well. I mean, imagine if you're at a game and ask a player to sign your ball. "Sure!" he says... and then whips out a sticker sheet from his back pocket and slaps it on the ball. Cool auto?? Not really. Why not slap stickers on balls, bats, and jerseys, too?! Why stop at cards?

Nate Colbert 17 · Jun 15, 2010

I would prefer sticker autos come with a date and expanation on the back of the card. Something like... "The sticker on this card was personally signed by Joe Schlabotnik on (date)".

I also wish modern players had the penmanship of Charlie Gehringer.

Tomlinson21RB · Jun 15, 2010

I'm a player collector, so I theoretically go after every card of my players. Of course, budget and the quantity of available cards makes that impossible. When I decide which cards on my watch list to bid on, I certainly prefer the on card autos over the sticker autos. I assume some other collectors do the same, creating a premium on the card even if I'm not deciding to pay more because of it.

miguelcabrera · Jun 15, 2010

Although I dont mind on card autos, I much prefer sticker ones.

RiceLynnEvans75 · Jun 15, 2010

I could care less. An auto to me is just a bonus. I remember buying packs before this concept was ever introduced so I'm not greedy.

It just comes down to the appearance of the card. I've seen some sticker auto cards that just look awful and some where the sticker actually fits right into the appearance of the card.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Sticker Auto vs. On Card Auto

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in