|Are Autographed Cards Worth More?|
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Posted by jaygross
Lots of people have asked me this question, "Does getting an autograph on card make it more valuable".. My gut reaction would be to think, that if the autograph is real, of course the autographed version should be worth more. After all, autographs should have value...
If I were to show you the following two cards, which one would you think would sell for more money?
1960 Topps Bob Gibson #73 - $30.25 on http://www.collectorscentral.com
This card has been autographed and graded a perfect 10 by PSA/DNA
1965 Topps Jim "Catfish" Hunter #526 - $56.00 on http://www.collectorscentral.com
This card has no autograph and graded a perfect 10 by GAI
If I had my choice of one over the other, I would go for the autographed Gibson (even though I would probably not bid on either item).
Now I realize it would have been a better comparison to look at the exact same card autographed vs. non-autographed... but these are two items that caught my attention selling on http://www.ebay.com. I figured I would consider these two examples as they are both graded 10 (perfect Mint) and I could be pretty sure the Gibson autograph is in fact real.
So my expectation is that the Gibson should sell for a bit more than the Hunter. The card is autographed and PSA holds a better reputation for getting higer prices than GAI for 1960's cards. But what do I know?
The autographed 1960 Topps Bob Gisbon sold for $96.57 with 7 bids.
The 1965 Topps Jim Hunter Rookie sold for $4,494.44 with 16 bids.
The Gibson sold for a little less than I expected - his autograph at the MAB show next month will cost you $59. I was in shock when I saw how much the Hunter rookie card sold for, and I think I still am. Needless to say I won't be buying any high-grade graded vintage cards any time soon.
PRINT | PERMALINK
Comments on blog posts can only be seen or left by Premium Subscribers. Subscribe now.