General question on autograph variations

miklia

hey gang. I had a general question on autographs, and how variations of them might be treated. I'm looking at picking up a modern guy (Chris Johnson), and see that 95+% of them are signed 'C J', with only a very few signed with his full name. Even though the full autos go for a big premium, is it a better idea to pick up the full auto version as he'll likely never sign that way again? Do players ever return to a longer auto after shortening it?

SDSportsFan

Personally, I would go for the full-length version. It really comes down to eye appeal. An autograph that simply reads "CJ" just doesn't have that eye appeal that I'm looking for. On the other hand, just because an autograph reads "Chris Johnson" doesn't automatically mean it's going to pass the eye appeal test, but it has a higher likelihood of doing so.

To answer your second question...I've never seen an athlete, or anyone else for that matter, go back to an earlier, longer version of their autograph, after having shortened it.


Steve

bigwilli

I would say the full version of his auto would be more desirable . It's ashame he doesnt sign everything that way . His C J
auto is terrible . He is a damn good running back

MooseDog

Full version of an autograph is always more desirable.

AFLfan

Sometimes guys have different versions of their autograph. For example, an IP signature may just be initials, while a signature from a paid appearance might get you a full name. Shawne Merriman comes to mind. His IP signature is simply "Lights Out," while a paid signing signature is more along the lines of "Shawne Merriman," though really it is "S___ M___ 56."

miklia

thanks everyone. I think I might try to pick one up!