Signing Game Used Items

[dpmancuso]

Sorry if this has been asked before, I couldn't find it in the archives, but what are some thoughts on getting game used items signed? Do you think it negatively affects the value of the item, or do you think it makes it more desired?

[michaellechner]

In most cases, it neither adds value nor decreases. It's a matter of personal preference. Some like it signed, others don't. There are those who will not buy an item if it's signed but I would say most don't care either way.

I don't prefer my items signed, but if something is signed it won't prevent me from buying it.

My advice? Do what YOU like. Your collection isn't about anyone else's opinion, it's about what you like and prefer.

[Chess2899]

I like mine signed. I don't like added inscriptions unless it says "game used". I see no point on a signature plus inscriptions such as HOF or 755 homers in that shows that the autograph was added later for a 1967 game used bat.

I think like this. Do you want a Babe Ruth game used bat or do you want one signed by him also? I see more value in the signed one.

[KGoldin]

Some business advice on that...take it for what its worth
if you are dealing with a current player, or recently retired player, and have a game used item and it wont cost you a ton to get it signed, I believe people prefer it to be signed.

HOWEVER, if you are dealing with a much older player, (ie Hank Aaron) whose signature has changed and is not 'period correct' , I believe it is foolish to add an aging players signature to a vintage item from 40-50 years ago where the signature on the item is not period correct.
Ken

[chasetheyanks]

I agree with michaellechner. To me, it doesn't increase the value. I'm not a big fan of game used items being signed, unless they are also inscribed game used. However, I will not shy away from signed items (unless the autograph is poor).

[michaellechner]

I like mine signed. I don't like added inscriptions unless it says "game used". I see no point on a signature plus inscriptions such as HOF or 755 homers in that shows that the autograph was added later for a 1967 game used bat.

I think like this. Do you want a Babe Ruth game used bat or do you want one signed by him also? I see more value in the signed one.

While I see your point, Babe Ruth is an exception, and probably isn't the best example to use here.

Let's use a random average player. Does a Bartolo Colón signature on his game used jersey add value? Probably not.

Will it add interest if you're selling it? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on what the buyer likes. It all comes down to personal preference.

Do you want him to sign it? Yes? Great! Get him to sign it and enjoy!

It's all pretty subjective. That's why I said earlier, collect what YOU like!

[thomaslynch]

I personally like my game used items signed. Now, I would say if it is a poor signature or if it is faded, then it can ruin the overall aesthetic of the item - especially a jersey. I guess my mentality is that I like autographs and I like game used items, so why not have both in 1 item?

[metsbats]

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_f...t=signing+bats


here's one about bats

[salukidave]

To each their own, of course. Personally, I think a bat and helmet can look great signed. Batting gloves and often spikes, not so much. Jerseys can be hit or miss, especially over time. I really don't like getting jerseys signed. There's too much that can go wrong that can damage the eye appeal and value. Even if a jersey is signed perfectly, over time the ink can bleed and or fade.

Plus it's hard to trust athletes these days to sign an item well. And many of them have autographs that are just scribbles. Why have someone scribble on a nice game-used jersey?

[esigs]

To each their own, of course. Personally, I think a bat and helmet can look great signed. Batting gloves and often spikes, not so much. Jerseys can be hit or miss, especially over time. I really don't like getting jerseys signed. There's too much that can go wrong that can damage the eye appeal and value. Even if a jersey is signed perfectly, over time the ink can bleed and or fade.

Plus it's hard to trust athletes these days to sign an item well. And many of them have autographs that are just scribbles. Why have someone scribble on a nice game-used jersey?

+1

Getting equipment signed is generally something I would consider, but I'm not a fan of getting jerseys signed, for the reasons mentioned. However, if a jersey I've been looking for is signed, I won't pass on it just because it's signed, but if it's not signed on the number, it'll make me think harder about getting it. Some signatures do not add to the visual appeal of a jersey not only because of poor penmanship but also because it's harder to sign on fabric than a hard surface.