Sticker autos versus On Card autos

[leatherman]

I know this is an old argument, but I wanted to see where people stand today.

I'm not interested in where you stand on what you will buy to flip, just what you would want for your personal collection.

David

 

[tramers]

I collect Pirates so i have to take what i can get ::facepalm:: ::facepalm::

 

[Brewer Andy]

I voted prefer but will stomach.......however, you need an option for player collectors! Player collectors have no say in the matter, if its on the checklist, it must be purchased

 

[George K]

Strictly on-card, Hank Aaron could sign a sticker and I wouldn't want it.

 

[Jays_Cards]

I'm a player collector, so although I MUCH prefer on-card, an auto is an auto in terms of my PC.

 

[pghbuccos]

No preference: an auto is an auto to me

as Brewer Andy said today's player collector's like myself don't have a choice if it's made I've got to buy it. I definitely prefer UD's clear stickers to Topps' silver foil stickers. if that counts for anything.

 

[Russ S.]

I'm a player collector, so although I MUCH prefer on-card, an auto is an auto in terms of my PC.

Agreed 1000000%

 

[Jared]

I was thinking about this a couple days ago and how I want to expand my collection. The conclusion that I came up with is I love on card autos and will only buy products/singles that have stickers on them if they are hardly noticeable.

 

[hofautos]

For PC, I will only buy a sticker in the RAREST of situations, where there is NO OTHER OPTION.

I hate stickers, not just because of aestetics, but MAINLY because it is a cheap way for the manufacturers to put out crap product.
The manufacturer can make a contract for a player in year 2005 to sign 1000 stickers, and then put one of those #1/1000 stickers on a 2009 product with a #1/1.

The manufacturer doesn't need to get a new contract every year, the player never even sees the card that he signs, the auto is really a #1/1000, besides the fact they are ugly, and just leave a sour taste in my mouth. I wish more people would boycott stickers so the manufacturers wouldn't put out the junk.

I actually don't mind they exist, as long as people will only pay like a 1/10th of what an on-card auto sells for, so if you need cheap, buy stickers...

 

[hive17]

I'll chime in with my fellow player collectors here. I would LOVE for everything to be on-card, but an auto is an auto and I'm GOING to have it. I think Topps Sterling looks decent. The old Donruss stickers were fine too.

And as for the current players, they have many things to do, so if you have to stomach a sticker to actually GET the auto, then I'm OK. Also, if a sticker prevents the rare, inconsiderate, player from jacking up a card's edges, corners, surface; I guess I'd be ok with that too. Of course, the opposite side of that coin is the mongo at Topps/UD who puts the sticker on crooked, or upside down, or uses the auto of, say, the FATHER of the player on the card... ::facepalm::

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Autos only look good when they fit in with the design of the rest of the card. This goes for stickers or on-card.

 

[Card Magnet]

I don't care either way - as long as there is a place left in the design of the card for an auto or sticker-auto to be on the card. I hate on card autos if there is no spot left, and the auto gets lost in a dark background or bubbles, like has happened with some recent Panini football releases. An sticker can be lost just as easy too, or can look out of place when not laid out properly.

 

[Sly]

Autos only look good when they fit in with the design of the rest of the card. This goes for stickers or on-card.

For the most part, I agree. There are some exceptions, such as the old Fan Favorites. No designated spot for an auto, but they look great signed anywhere...

But one thing I actually almost hate more is when there is a designated spot for an on-card auto, and the player signs elsewhere on the card...such as this:

I think that almost looks worse than a clear sticker in this situation.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Yes, to me that's fitting in with the design of the card! Except for the Ortiz, those cards look great, IMO.

Autos only look good when they fit in with the design of the rest of the card. This goes for stickers or on-card.

For the most part, I agree. There are some exceptions, such as the old Fan Favorites. No designated spot for an auto, but they look great signed anywhere...

 

[Brewer Andy]

The classic SP Authentics were great too, esp the 03-04 stuff IMO. Agree that the decision for me is probably 95% card design

 

[blitzerlover]

The classic SP Authentics were great too, esp the 03-04 stuff IMO. Agree that the decision for me is probably 95% card design

Why yes they do:

 

[tramers]

Autos only look good when they fit in with the design of the rest of the card. This goes for stickers or on-card.

I agree with this - some when signing iP use only certain places year after year . being left handed myself some autos would be smeared .

 

[justinmandawg]

I think that if autos keep getting wiped and then faked they might need to do what some of the nascar guys do. partially on and off a sticker. That way stickers can't be wiped and reused and a card won't get wiped.

 

[VizquelCollector.com]

I hate sticker autos but as a player collector I buy what's available. Truthfully I'd rather not have an auto at all if it's a sticker. A nice parallel or insert is much better IMO.

 

[Russ S.]

Nothing beats a beautiful On the Card Auto though.

But I still take what I can get.
But if I had bottomless pockets, On-Card I would stay.