Does an IP Autograph Ruin a Card for Collectors?

meingram

meingram

Verified Trader,
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
481
Reaction score
0
Location
MontCo, PA
I was sitting in a chat room the other night and someone asked a question that took me by surprise.

They asked if taking a 1/1 Property Of card from The Cup and getting an in-person autograph (from the player on the card) would increase the value. Initially, I was shocked to hear that a collector would consider doing that, but I was relieved at the overwhelming reaction of "no, don't do it".

I didn't think anything of it until I was doing my routine eBay searches this morning and stumbled across two more cards.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Alex-Pietra...t=US_Hockey_Trading_Cards&hash=item46110b1fe8

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dallas-Star...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

:| :curse: :banned:

These are just two examples of printing plates from 08-09 The Cup that someone had autographed by the player after they had been pulled from the pack. They were obviously never intended to be autographed, as they came from non-auto'd cards and don't have the "Auto Rookie" at the top.

So my question is, are there people out there who would consider acquiring something like this, and if so, do you think it adds value to the card?

Personally, if someone had done this to a card that I was looking to pick up, I would stay as far away from it as possible.


Mike
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
The other side of the coin.....

Steve Yzerman was in Chatham quite a few years ago and I had him sign a few RC's.

Many people told me I ruined those cards.

I took a $100 card and made it a $5 card in the eyes of many. But they were MY CARDS.

But, when I put one in the show case (a couple years ago), it was surprising how those very same people who said I "ruined" the card were quick to offer me $300 for it...
 
Last edited:
Depends on the circumstance, really. If it's a card that's going to be in your PC and isn't going anywhere, I don't see the harm. If it's a card that you're going to try to move in the future, it may be difficult unless you can verify its sourcing and authenticity.

I mean, I wouldn't consider this to be a ruined card, right?

559382_10151472852453356_1005366585_n.jpg
 
It's definitely a question of circumstances. Here's a Roy RC I pulled from ITG's History of Hockey

RoyPSA8AutoRC.jpg


I haven't seen many of them floating around at all. I had the card taken out of it's DNA only slab and graded by PSA. There's only a few of them in the population report. It's a card that I intend on keeping for a while, but if I ever want to move it, I think I shouldn't have a problem finding an interested buyer.

I think it's a risk either way if resale is the intent, but as has been said earlier if it's card you intend to keep, then who cares what others perceive the value as being?
 
RGM81 said:
Depends on the circumstance, really. If it's a card that's going to be in your PC and isn't going anywhere, I don't see the harm. If it's a card that you're going to try to move in the future, it may be difficult unless you can verify its sourcing and authenticity.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But the issue here is that the seller is trying to profit off a card that has marker all over the front of it. It doesn't matter who put it there, it wasn't supposed to be there to begin with, so to me, it ruins the card for a player collector who may need it.

Like matthewstevens43 said, just imagine that you finally find the last card you needed for a rainbow and someone did something like this to it.

For a card that you're putting in your PC, that's up to you, but don't mark up a card that you're not keeping just to try and make a few bucks off of it.
 
It might "ruin" the card for a player collector, but it might become more desirable to another collector.

It's a tough one - and very subjective.

I would hate to see a card show up that is on my pc list with an ip auto. But I don't think I could go so far as to say the card is ruined. It just becomes undesirable for me.

I guess if the owner of the card wants to do it...who am I to say they can't.

I haven't experienced it yet so it's tough for me to say how much it would bother me.

Good thread though. Interesting points.
 
One could even go so far as to say that it's a "custom" card. Some of us like to have fun with custom cards, et al or when we pull a simple jersey card sometimes we think of what it would look like if it were signed. I must admit, I did this once. I am a Stars fan and I had an 08/09 Ultimate Debut Threads jersey of Marc Fistric...just a simple rookie jersey card. So since it was worthless anyways I took it to Stars practice and got Fistric to sign it. Last season when he was traded to Edmonton, a fellow Edmonton collector saw that I had that card in my bucket, asked if it was available and I said sure. We ended up making a deal for a small Parise jersey card I needed and all was good. I would say small things like that may have a "place" in the hobby, but I would think it'd be harder to move bigger stars like Orr, Crosby, Gretzky et al. That being said, if I were to ever have those in my collection, they wouldn't be moved. However when it comes to inked cards, I try to stick with certified company-produced cards (UD, Panini...) for my collection. I know they're legit and they always maintain a value.


On another level of "ruining" a card...what about someone who signs where they shouldn't? Take this card for example...and it stings extra for me b/c JJ is my PC. He was supposed to sign in that big, white, blank space beneath the patch swatch. What does he do? Signs ON the swatch. The card looks so bad now...the ink is bleeding into the fabric and the dead white space is exactly that...and from what I have seen on these cards, he signed them all like that.


So would one question if cards done this way are "ruined?"

I love this discussion and some very, very good and valid points have been made. Every collector is different. Every collection is different. I say collect what you like and be happy in it. If IP ink is something you like doing, then continue doing it. I admit that getting ink on a numbered/scarce/1-of-1 card would NOT be the way to go, for the simple reason that Matthew stated. You'd hate to take that rare card out of circulation for someone down the road.

If you're going to get IP ink on cards, I would say stick to base, inserts, and if you want to get swatch-cards signed, then just go with the usual UD Jersey cards that come in Series 1 and 2. But if your plan is to flip them in the future, don't expect a large return, if any. My deal for the Fistric card came as a surprise and wouldn't be considered the norm.
 
I don't mind players signing in the wrong place.

The only ones that I find a problem getting an IPA signature on is cards that have an auto version. I see a lot of 97-98 Pinnacle BAP autos that are IPA. The problem with that set (and the year before it) was that Pinnacle didn't do Auto-only cardbacks with the COA on it. So you can get had if you don't realise that the Autos were only on the cards with the gold foil.
 
I was happy when I found this card a few months ago... It was on my want list since many years :
9946742_orig.jpg


A few weeks later, i bought also this one :
5014483_orig.jpg


I personnally send the IP to DNA, and it's a nice piece for my PC.
 
I am fine with IP auto's as long as they are certified. I have bought a few Gretzky IP bec i knew it was JSA certified. i have quite a few IP that i treasure like my Ken Dryden that i got myself
 
meingram said:
Agreed.

But the issue here is that the seller is trying to profit off a card that has marker all over the front of it. It doesn't matter who put it there, it wasn't supposed to be there to begin with, so to me, it ruins the card for a player collector who may need it.

Like matthewstevens43 said, just imagine that you finally find the last card you needed for a rainbow and someone did something like this to it.

For a card that you're putting in your PC, that's up to you, but don't mark up a card that you're not keeping just to try and make a few bucks off of it.
Click to expand...

And with cards like those in your OP, I agree that it shouldn't be done with those types of items. There are so many autographed cards in The Cup that getting anything other than the base cards signed would be a devaluation in the card, in my opinion. Because most IP signatures look kinda shoddy vis-a-vis a sit-down paid signing session signature, doing that to a plate or even one of the Cup Foundations jersey cards (especially when there's an actual COA'd by UD parallel) would be a poor idea.

I know that this is kind of an arbitrary thing that I'm just saying as I type but I don't think that a card with a low print run (call it 25 or less) should get marked up like that unless it's by an owner that knows for sure he's not going to try and re-sell it. I couldn't imagine doing that with a 1/1 - imagine if there's a problem with the pen and it bleeds or doesn't sign properly in a part of the signature, or there's a smudge. Yikes.
 
it really depends on the collector. I searched for years for the 01-02 Mask Collection dual patches of Hejduk and I saw one on here that someone has autographed by Hejduk and I wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole because its not the original card. Unless it got to be 10-15 years of searching would I might consider it, but only as a place holder.
 
It doesn't necessarily ruin it, no - but it changes how you can sell / trade that card.

If I'm looking for your card to finsih my set, I'm not going to want one that has been altered. As a player collector, I'm looking for the pack pulled card to complete my want list, not something you've got signed later.

Having said that, there is a market for IP Autographs. A big one. I paid about 10x more for an IP Signed Ranford RC than I would have for that card unsigned. I have an "all time Edmonton Oilers" autograph collection, and that has meant I've purchased a lot of IP autographs, of players who have never had a certified autograph card. A common OPC card from 1977 might be worth a quarter, but being signed.... a $5 - $10 range (if you have an interested buyer) is pretty easy to get.

Now, something like a printing plate - if you wanted it for your own collection, cool. I mean, it's your card.... do what you want with it. I do not think you are doing yourself any favours in terms of resale value by going that route though. Anything really limited like that, I would think you'd have more interested people (therefore a higher sale price) if the card remains unsigned.
 
I completely understand if someone desire to having a IP-auto...so long it's on base cards or photos...
But heck...those The Cup plates, eww now that's an absolutement nastyment!

Big no no no in my books!
Of course it's always up to every individuals to do what they wants with their things for personal sake but not ok to "ruining" a collectible thing and then trying to selling them, not ok for me!
 
I think IP autos are awesome. Especially on patch cards. Base card autographs are boring. I love meeting players and getting a few memorabilia cards signed for my own collection. They're not something I'm trying to make money off of, just my own version of a 1/1.
 
If it's a player/card/auto that I'd keep for myself, I'd definitely do it. Even a Gretzky RC. It'd go straight to my PC. Regular RC's are easy to get. If you can get it certified, there's no question.
 
Its all about verifying the sig but unless you are keeping in your pc, thats what base and crap jersey are for. Same as ttm. I want auth if buying. Higher ends have set collectors that want untouched.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
390,142
Messages
2,238,825
Members
4,169
Latest member
Misso
Back
Top