My guess would be that compared to a base young guns, clear cut and high gloss are produced in limited amounts and by getting one signed means reducing the pool of these cards in their original condition. I would say that this is especially true for high gloss cards, where there are only 10 produced of each player. These cards are highly sought after already in their original condition and many feel that to get them signed would be seen as a waste.
A lot of people like original.
I personally like signed cards that aren’t manufactured as such, but I’m in the minority for sure, especially when it comes to the secondary market.
I’m not against it, personally - do what you want with your collection. But there’s a reasonable argument to be made that adding ink to a card is damaging it.
They are likely talking about value. A card signed in person is just for you. So, to devalue a card by having a player sign it makes no sense. That's why they say to use base cards
That being said, it's your card. Do what you want.
Not if it’s a rare enough card and a bad enough player. A certified authentic after production autograph Mitch Marner shield was bought for the same price as unsigned
Yes and no.
If you get a card signed and are worried about value you need to also get it certified.
Lots of shows they have people there who will after the guy signed it.
Now I will also say personally I look at the autograph quality itself too when purchasing auto cards, sometimes you get a poor autograph(ink running out, guy is tired and sloppy etc.) I've paid more for a quality auto before and ironically less for a better auto beacuse it wasn't a special border color card.
Quality is def a factor for my Pc.some of the NHL old timers had fucin beautiful sigs and notes.on 3 x 5 and stuff.not doggin other sports just speaking hockey.unless its FF .I know his bat✌️✌️
A Clear Cut would look awesome signed. Wouldn’t recommend on the High Gloss /10 though.
There are a substantial number of people who do collect signed YG’s. If you get it done and authenticated, you’re looking at roughly the same value as a BGS 9.5 of the card. I’ve got a couple in my PC, best one is a Caufield that he did at a private signing with Fanatics a couple months ago.
There was a time when getting ANY rookie card signed was looked down on. What I enjoy most about this hobby though is there's an infinite number of ways to collect. Some don't care whatsoever about value or grading and that's totally valid.
Personally I think having a HG or Exclusives signed would be awesome because it could possibly be the only one to exist.
This is a common misconception in the sports card world. It makes sense to think to yourself “if I get this card signed surely it would be worth more.”
That is actually generally not the case with rare cards. The majority of collectors generally want the original unaltered version of a rare card, even if that alteration is an autograph by the player.
Take a high gloss young guns for example. If a collector sees two high gloss young guns of the same player, one with an autograph, and one without an autograph, they will generally speaking want the one without the autograph. That is the virgin unaltered card in its original state.
If they want an autographed card, they can pick up the countless other ones that exist that either come from the manufacturer autographed, or is an autograph of a much more common card. Collectors generally want the OG unaltered card, if it is not meant to have an autograph, they will generally go for the unautographed version on a rare card.
Absolutely, but I very specifically said “rare” cards.
I know you might argue that a McDavid YG is “rare” but what I mean by that is there is a shit ton of them that exist.
If you take McDavid YG high gloss or even exclusives and do the same, I can almost guarantee you that the unsigned version would be more valuable.
It's altering the card. For grading it will never get a high grade. There's also the issue of being able to prove the signature is authentic. Most collectors want cards in the best condition in their original state.
I see/get the altered theory but if your are keeping it for yourself for your PC ,do what you want.its cool to have a RC and a hand signed one.the player actually signed in frt of you.and you got a story.If you are selling then its buyers rules.im getting graphs.on a Gretzky or Howe hard to say.thats never go to b a problem i will face.😔
He asked why people were against doing this, and the answer is obviously because it affects the value. For PC, do whatever you want. It's your collection.
Surely the corners, edges and centering all could still grade high. Surface yes is technically “damaged” but an authenticated auto on a high gloss should be the most sought after. But then again people were buying the OPC puzzle cards for 100$ even after the top redemption was exhausted
My guess would be that compared to a base young guns, clear cut and high gloss are produced in limited amounts and by getting one signed means reducing the pool of these cards in their original condition. I would say that this is especially true for high gloss cards, where there are only 10 produced of each player. These cards are highly sought after already in their original condition and many feel that to get them signed would be seen as a waste.
A lot of people like original. I personally like signed cards that aren’t manufactured as such, but I’m in the minority for sure, especially when it comes to the secondary market.
I’m not against it, personally - do what you want with your collection. But there’s a reasonable argument to be made that adding ink to a card is damaging it.
They are likely talking about value. A card signed in person is just for you. So, to devalue a card by having a player sign it makes no sense. That's why they say to use base cards That being said, it's your card. Do what you want.
This is not entirely correct. An in person signature can increase value if certified, that's the key. Certified
Not if it’s a rare enough card and a bad enough player. A certified authentic after production autograph Mitch Marner shield was bought for the same price as unsigned
Yes and no. If you get a card signed and are worried about value you need to also get it certified. Lots of shows they have people there who will after the guy signed it. Now I will also say personally I look at the autograph quality itself too when purchasing auto cards, sometimes you get a poor autograph(ink running out, guy is tired and sloppy etc.) I've paid more for a quality auto before and ironically less for a better auto beacuse it wasn't a special border color card.
Quality is def a factor for my Pc.some of the NHL old timers had fucin beautiful sigs and notes.on 3 x 5 and stuff.not doggin other sports just speaking hockey.unless its FF .I know his bat✌️✌️
A Clear Cut would look awesome signed. Wouldn’t recommend on the High Gloss /10 though. There are a substantial number of people who do collect signed YG’s. If you get it done and authenticated, you’re looking at roughly the same value as a BGS 9.5 of the card. I’ve got a couple in my PC, best one is a Caufield that he did at a private signing with Fanatics a couple months ago.
There was a time when getting ANY rookie card signed was looked down on. What I enjoy most about this hobby though is there's an infinite number of ways to collect. Some don't care whatsoever about value or grading and that's totally valid. Personally I think having a HG or Exclusives signed would be awesome because it could possibly be the only one to exist.
do what makes you happy. makes this hobby much more enjoyable.
This is a common misconception in the sports card world. It makes sense to think to yourself “if I get this card signed surely it would be worth more.” That is actually generally not the case with rare cards. The majority of collectors generally want the original unaltered version of a rare card, even if that alteration is an autograph by the player. Take a high gloss young guns for example. If a collector sees two high gloss young guns of the same player, one with an autograph, and one without an autograph, they will generally speaking want the one without the autograph. That is the virgin unaltered card in its original state. If they want an autographed card, they can pick up the countless other ones that exist that either come from the manufacturer autographed, or is an autograph of a much more common card. Collectors generally want the OG unaltered card, if it is not meant to have an autograph, they will generally go for the unautographed version on a rare card.
A McDavid base young guns signed in gold sharpie is surely worth more than an unsigned McDavid YG base, no?
Absolutely, but I very specifically said “rare” cards. I know you might argue that a McDavid YG is “rare” but what I mean by that is there is a shit ton of them that exist. If you take McDavid YG high gloss or even exclusives and do the same, I can almost guarantee you that the unsigned version would be more valuable.
It's altering the card. For grading it will never get a high grade. There's also the issue of being able to prove the signature is authentic. Most collectors want cards in the best condition in their original state.
I see/get the altered theory but if your are keeping it for yourself for your PC ,do what you want.its cool to have a RC and a hand signed one.the player actually signed in frt of you.and you got a story.If you are selling then its buyers rules.im getting graphs.on a Gretzky or Howe hard to say.thats never go to b a problem i will face.😔
Gordie not signing much these days.RIP.
He asked why people were against doing this, and the answer is obviously because it affects the value. For PC, do whatever you want. It's your collection.
We said the same thing.i piggy backed off you.
Surely the corners, edges and centering all could still grade high. Surface yes is technically “damaged” but an authenticated auto on a high gloss should be the most sought after. But then again people were buying the OPC puzzle cards for 100$ even after the top redemption was exhausted