- Thread starter
- #1
mrmopar
Member
- Jan 19, 2010
- 6,774
- 5,665
When I was a kid, I remember our elementary school had a lamination machine and if I recall, they would let us laminate things at least once, if not time to time. I still have a 1978 Topps Pete Rose that was "professionally" laminated. I say that because after I discovered lamination, I later discovered contact paper. I became a self-laminating machine, laminating numerous cards with clear contact paper that I cut myself. You think those 70s Hostess cards are cut bad...
Anyway, my point to bringing this up related to laminating collectibles. It is obviously bad to laminate cards that have decent value (or any card, for that matter), even though it helps preserve the condition to a certain extent. I have also seen photos, newspapers and posters that got laminated. Again, this preserves the condition of the items, but now they are encased in plastic. This certainly can and usually does hurt collectibility and future value.
What do you think about laminted autographs? The item was still signed by the person, but you can't touch the ink any longer (that does sound weird and I no, I don't rub my autographs). it was not all that uncommon in the 50s and before for someone to place some clear tape over autographs. often they sell that way. Balls were shellacked to preserve them. I know a clean ball is obviously worth more, but a shellacked ball still sells. I just bought two 8x10 autographs of Garvey that appear to be laminated. These would not be the first. I have at least 2-3, if not a few more photos, usually 8x10, that were laminated at some point. I was not overly happy about it when I didn't know, but I have come to accept it. Now, I specifically bought 2 knowing full well they were laminated. Perhaps it would help to know I only paid $5 per photo, which is not all that much of a discount from a current 8x10 image signed by Garvey. They are plentiful and can often be had for $10 or less before s/h.
Anyone have any opinions one way or the other on laminated signatures (on anything from cards to posters) or even cards in general? Anyone own any themselves and why do you have them or why did you buy them that way if that is the case? Do you see this ever being an accepted way to preserve collectibles?
Anyway, my point to bringing this up related to laminating collectibles. It is obviously bad to laminate cards that have decent value (or any card, for that matter), even though it helps preserve the condition to a certain extent. I have also seen photos, newspapers and posters that got laminated. Again, this preserves the condition of the items, but now they are encased in plastic. This certainly can and usually does hurt collectibility and future value.
What do you think about laminted autographs? The item was still signed by the person, but you can't touch the ink any longer (that does sound weird and I no, I don't rub my autographs). it was not all that uncommon in the 50s and before for someone to place some clear tape over autographs. often they sell that way. Balls were shellacked to preserve them. I know a clean ball is obviously worth more, but a shellacked ball still sells. I just bought two 8x10 autographs of Garvey that appear to be laminated. These would not be the first. I have at least 2-3, if not a few more photos, usually 8x10, that were laminated at some point. I was not overly happy about it when I didn't know, but I have come to accept it. Now, I specifically bought 2 knowing full well they were laminated. Perhaps it would help to know I only paid $5 per photo, which is not all that much of a discount from a current 8x10 image signed by Garvey. They are plentiful and can often be had for $10 or less before s/h.
Anyone have any opinions one way or the other on laminated signatures (on anything from cards to posters) or even cards in general? Anyone own any themselves and why do you have them or why did you buy them that way if that is the case? Do you see this ever being an accepted way to preserve collectibles?
