Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Why Why Why?

smapdi

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
4,330
132
I'm missing something. Is it,"Why did the put a fake auto on this nice card?" (no idea if it's fake or not) or "Why are they asking $2600 for it?"
 

nosterbor

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2010
5,698
124
Sunny Florida
The auto is real. Why would you ruin a 1993 finest refractor with an autograph. Unless the card was bent in half or some other catastrophic flaw.
 

thelesquad

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2008
1,355
56
The auto is real. Why would you ruin a 1993 finest refractor with an autograph. Unless the card was bent in half or some other catastrophic flaw.
This same conversation was had last year in a Sandberg collector's group. Someone had him sign a 1993 Finest Refractor as well. Many collectors hated the idea, but a few loved it and someone actually bought it.

1638806420187.png
 

mrmopar

Member
Jan 19, 2010
4,767
1,151
The auto is real. Why would you ruin a 1993 finest refractor with an autograph. Unless the card was bent in half or some other catastrophic flaw.
That, my friend, is in the eye of the beholder. I'd do the same thing, given the opportunity. There are almost 250 of those Juan Gone refractors, right? How many are signed? Probably fewer than a dozen, if even that many. I'd bet there are people out there willing to buy a card like that. I guess the question becomes, is there a Juan collector or fan willing to spend that much money on the card with signature?

I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of folks now who'd get Mantle to sign a 52 Topps without a second thought, when very few would take that "risk" when he was still alive. Unless it is pristine condition, I think an autograph only improves a vintage card. It remains to be seen what autographs will do to lower print run inserts and the likes when the current stars are dead and gone and there is no way to reproduce an item like that.
 

mrmopar

Member
Jan 19, 2010
4,767
1,151
I should add that I have moved into a state with my collection that leaves me lacking interest if the item is not signed. This is especially true to items that were mass produced and easy to find. It's a little trickier with rare items, but I'll still say a signed rarity is better than an unsigned one, if the signature is quality and the item still looks great with a signature (sadly, some items don't look good regardless with a signature)
 

JVHaste

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2015
4,752
268
Vancouver WA
I recall seeing a few Crusades signed over the years, including a red for a prominent player. What it Ripken? :unsure:
 

magicpapa

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
9,637
754
This same conversation was had last year in a Sandberg collector's group. Someone had him sign a 1993 Finest Refractor as well. Many collectors hated the idea, but a few loved it and someone actually bought it.

View attachment 315993
seller has one for sale too, along with a few other players, plus a graded set, unsigned
griffey also
 

thelesquad

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2008
1,355
56
seller has one for sale too, along with a few other players, plus a graded set, unsigned
griffey also
That Ryno is gorgeous but way out of my price range.
 

jmc855

Member
Jan 11, 2013
91
49
RI
The auto is real. Why would you ruin a 1993 finest refractor with an autograph. Unless the card was bent in half or some other catastrophic flaw.
As a player collector, I am and have been considering one of my 93 Finest refractors for a Clemens auto actually, so it's funny you mention it. I would do so because its a cool card to me, so I wouldn't feel I "ruined it", and it would be more unique than the boatload of 87/88 vintage junk wax cards that he's signed for nearly everyone on planet earth. I don't feel I ruined my PawSox TCMA rookie by having it signed, or the Fleer Update I'll likely have signed. To each our own, I guess.
 

mrmopar

Member
Jan 19, 2010
4,767
1,151
I think another factor is that autograph collectors tend to see more value (either personal or monetary) in having nice things signed. its not always about money, but that is always present in the background too. I hate seeing junky reprint cards, especially cards that are flawed. Who gets a beater card signed? What is the point of that?

Anyway, like jmc855 said, I would get the TCMA or the 84 Fleer Traded card signed before I would have him sign a 1987 Topps, even before his 85 RCs, because they are just better cards made even that much better with a signature. There will always be more unsigned copies to buy than signed copies, if the signature is that unappealing.

I think the serious card collector who may only buys auto for a player collection or for the count (like I do for GU cards, for example) doesn't see the autograph as all that appealing necessarily, but the cards themselves are individual works of art. Not slamming anyone for the way they collect or what they value (unless you get beater cards signed, then I have to bash you!!), clearly it does come down to what appeals the most to an individual.

I will maintain my mindset though that if not already, signed "premium" cards will almost always eventually out value (monetarily at least) their unsigned counterparts with possibly the exception of the grading factor. However, even then if a card can still grade a 10 with a signature, it makes it all that more rare and unique and possibly even more valuable.
 

thechuckday

New member
Aug 13, 2020
4
0
People like autos on cards for a variety of reasons. I already had a Kareem auto, but getting his 87-88 Fleer card meant something to me because I pulled it from a pack when Kaybee Toys had them on clearance for 49¢. It’s certainly wasn’t a card to get graded, but I did have BGS authenticate it since they were at the show. So it’s slabbed and I like it better than the more valuable auto card.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top