Patches vs. Sigs

[mouschi]

Which do you prefer? I guess it all depends upon the card, but for me, the choice is clear on the new National Treasures Bash Brothers booklet.

The dual sig booklet:
Nice? Yes, of course - when I first saw one hit ebay, I was pumped to see it, but it did seem bland.

The dual patch booklet:
WOW! When I first saw this on ebay, my I drooled a bit. The colors almost ... almost make me forget the lack of logos!

For me, the winner by KO in the first round is the dual patch. What about you?

 

[Lancemountain]

On card auto> anything else IMO

in your example- the sticker autos and lake of licensing make the first card look very blah.

 

[smapdi]

Aside from the messed up Mac sig, in this case I like the sigs. This particular design with the shadowbox looks kind of classy, if I'm seeing it right. Are they stickers or a piece of acetate? Are they in the recessed area or on the surface?

 

[Pinbreaker]

How about both?

 

[mouschi]

How about both?

Love those!

 

[mouschi]

Aside from the messed up Mac sig, in this case I like the sigs. This particular design with the shadowbox looks kind of classy, if I'm seeing it right. Are they stickers or a piece of acetate? Are they in the recessed area or on the surface?

I believe acetate ... I don't have one yet!

 

[dano7]

As much as I love autographs, I think the patch card looks the best!
DANNY

 

[DiebytheCubs]

I love the look of patch cards but with the way the card companies operate I can never be sure of the patches' authenticity. Because of that, I vote autographs


Hand delivered via the Pony Express

 

[Nate Colbert 17]

I like patches better, but can understand why people like autographs.

All autographs cards should, in my opinion, consist of a Charlie Gehringer and Harmon Killebrew quality.

 

[mlbsalltimegreats]

Patch cards all the way for me!

 

[gracecollector]

Both are nice cards in my opinion. I think you're lucky both exist and could be displayed together - just cool to see the card both ways. If you held a gun to my head, I'd say the patches look nicer, but I'd rather have the sigs for value.

 

[Dilferules]

It depends on the player and how nice the patch is but overall I'd have to go with patches, just based on there not being as many. I have thousands of autographs in my collection, but probably only a couple hundred patches. And very few super nice patches.

 

[JoshHamilton]

Patches, because each one is different. Autographs are awesome, but in the end it's just a bunch of identical scribble marks in black ink.

I wish more companies would do ink color variations, and not the disappearing ink Topps used on Tribute and Dynasty

 

[Austin]

Autographs on card.

Patch cards look great, but I don't trust they're all game-used, and that the little old ladies gluing on the patches are even using the correct ones.

At least with most autographs, you can usually be confident the signatures are authentic, or in the case of big name vintage, certified by a reputable authenticator.

Patches are just too much of a leap of faith.

 

[predatorkj]

At this point I am not really drawn towards one more than the other. I like both equally I suppose. I do tend to go after patch autos if they are affordable though.

As far as authenticity, I'm prone to buying panini stuff because they have wording on the card saying the items are game worn. True? Who knows. But Topps is pretty much insinuating on most cards that the relic contained therein could be something the guy wore at a photo shoot, game or player issued, old timers day, or God knows what else. I'm not super thrilled with that.

 

[predatorkj]

Might I add, and I figured this really merited its own post...that if the companies really went the extra mile and ensured all gu items are really gu'd, I'd be willing to spend more money on the relic cards and probably purchase more of them. I saw what topps did with strata and I liked that. However, that is only one of their releases out of a whole plethora of other iffy stuff floating around.