HOF Autographs
bgr
Posts: 2,472 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have a few new autograph submissions starting to emerge from the PSA queues and thought it would be fun to chronicle the additions to my collection, and perhaps toss in a few old ones that I've curated over the years. I primarily collect HOF player autos from MLB, but my collection extends into NFL, NBA, NHL and other sports such as Wrestling, Formula 1, Soccer, Skateboarding, and, most recently, Disc Golf.
Double Barrel Jim Thome 10/10 attempts to get the ball rolling.
This first one looked OK online, but there were no Secure Scan images for close inspection. This one had low probability of re-grading as a 10.
This second one looked great. Should re-grade 10 no issues.
I was pleased with the outcome of these.
4
Comments
I got a couple more Rickey Henderson RCs autographed at the last National and I can add another 9/10 to my collection. This one might have been a 10/10 years ago. I pulled this from a vending box long ago.
I am happy this got a 9 as things are today in grading. I'm down to about 25 remaining raw Henderson RCs and I think I have a few more shots at a 10/10.
My 2nd attempt at a 89 Score Sanders RC with his 2053 yard rushing season inscription. The inscription was supposed to include '1997' as ' 2053 Yds. 1997'. For my 2000+ yard rushing inscription collection.
Somewhat of a fail, but this card did have some minor surface issues and the centering L/R was borderline for 10. This was a rush purchase before the National so I need to do a better job reviewing the cards I select.
Awesome. I just threw some in the November thread that I recently got slabbed that I picked up as a kid 40 years ago but nothing as nice as these. The RH is GREAT.
Stocking up on Pujols and Ichiro. Here's the first Pujols RC through. Got a really good deal on this SGC 9.5. Looked solid online and aside from some very minor surface scuffs I thought this was a solid 9 with a chance at a 10. Got the 9, but still happy.
Not a HOFer in the conventional sense, but I'm going to add Clemens to my HOF collection without prejudice. Pack-pulled Clemens RC.
This had a shot at a 9, but the registration and print holds this card back. I use a service for a lot of my autographs now and they prep the cards and ship them out for private signings. They do a great job presenting the locations for signatures.
This is one of my favorite cards. Love the card, the auto + inscriptions... and it's so much better when it's a card you pulled yourself.
I added this one last-minute when Sandberg was available. Looked nice. I didn't even get a picture before it was signed.
The more I looked at the card once the first scans appeared... I thought this might have a shot at a 10/10. That would have been nice as I currently have a 9/10 in my registry set. Another card pulled from a pack from 83 wax.
These are great! Tough to get them to sign it and get PSA to give it a 10 again. Good hunt though!
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
If it wasn't for Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson I think people would talk about the incredible Juan Marichal more. There's certainly aspects of luck involved in the stat I chose to commemorate but, nonetheless, I find averaging 19.1 wins per season for a decade to be an impressive accomplishment.
I picked this PSA 8 up on eBay just before the National a couple years ago to get signed and inscribed. Unfortunately it didn't regrade as an 8, but I think it's one of the nicest autographed Marichal RCs out there.
One of those interesting HOF cases here. Bad fielder (ironically well known for those Tom Emanski videos) and a Double-Play machine - I think the cool nickname and the almost 500 HRs along with solid run production and excellent hitting swayed the voters. Unfortunately that didn't sway the voters at PSA to re-grade this a 10.
Good luck. My results have been kind of average as of late.
Not complaining, just looking for the ocassional hit.
I definitely prefer getting my own autographs. It's just better in my opinion. That said, I do occasionally hunt for graded autographs where the card isn't graded or is just graded for authenticity. I've found a lot of top-pops like this one. (not top pop anymore as there are 2 9/10 examples graded as of 2024 - POP 17 with 2 higher isn't bad)
Bought from 4sc for around $125. Came back 8/10.
You should have gotten Coop's signature on there too. I consider him one of the most underrated guys from the 70s/80s. Dude could play.
Agree. But for Brett hitting .390 he would have won the MVP in 1980. Had a monster year. In the 80s I called it the Cooper/Fisk rookie as I thought Cooper was better. Unfortunately his peak with the Brewers was too short.
That reminds me of a story from Sports Collectors Digest in the 1980s: IIRC, Cooper was a rubber stamper for by-mail signature requests. Someone sent him a card to 'sign' and he was a little sloppy with it so the recipient got a card stamped "Cecil Coo" with the rest of the stamp not even making it onto the card.
I keep an eye out for a lot of these guys at Waukesha Sportscards for signings.
Pop 1 none higher OPC variety of the... Cooper & Fisk RC.
cue sad trombone...
turning a PSA 8 into trash thanks to the ineptitude and inconsistency of PSA. I'm told that this card is N6 (min size not met). Most of the time I get these back raw in the sleeve and saver (MINSIZERQ) but these I guess come back in slabs. I like getting them to point out that it's really just an opinion. In this case, the opinion on the physical size of the card has changed. Way to go PSA.
While it's hard to not get frustrated at this... it is part of the process and happens about 15% of the time. Just have to remember that this isn't NASA grading our cards. Whoosah. Whoosah. Whoosah.
I like how he signed his name over Ron Cey's face. I hated the Penguin. Sorry about your card.
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
There's a mantra that you have to live by and it's... Why get one PSA 8 Schmidt RC signed when you can get TWO signed for twice the price!
This one turned out a little bit better. Unfortunately I only did the 548 HR inscription on one of them - trying to get my 500HR club autos with career HR total inscribed. I really don't have a problem with a cracking an 8 and getting a 7. That completely makes sense to me with regard to "opinion" of the grader. The card is the card and it's no better or worse regardless what the label says. The physical measurements of the card however...
7/10
POP 25 (9 higher). There's a 9/10 out there so I wasn't going to be top-pop anyways which softens the blow.
Sorry to hear about that Schmidt. That's a bummer for real.
I had an interesting turn recently. I'd sent a card in (straight out of a vending) and it came back Min Size. I waited a while for another Vintage special and sent it in again. This time it came back Evid Trim!?!
So, apparently they're confused on the size and how to tell if it's trimmed. Fun times.
I had a recent 1968 PSA sub where I was expecting 8-10 and I got back 4-6 so I was a little worried that this was going to get hammered and I was going to have some serious regrets. Thankfully this one wasn't N6 or whatever...
POP 17, 2 higher (a 8.5 and a 9).
I do have a PSA 9 -- they are not exceptionally rare, but I think that one needs to stay holstered. I'm content with this for my collection. Upgrades my 6/10.
Welcome to Cooperstown Dick Allen.
Welcome to Cooperstown Dave Parker. Glad he can enjoy it.
I had a very interesting and enlightening interaction with PSA regarding the Mike Schmidt card (and a couple others) which were deemed N6 (too small) from my previous order.
PSA Response
There are multiple techniques which can be used to measure a card in a holder with great precision allowing for a very accurate measurement.
The size of the slabs are standard. These are hard-tooled, injection-molded slabs and the variance from one slab to another is measured in micrometers. 1 / 1000 / 1000. This is useful when you have an image, such as a SecureScan image from PSA, but do not have the card in hand to measure.
If you have the card, a precision ruler is usually enough.
If you have the card, using a scanner allows for very accurate card measurement. Higher DPI = more precision -> allows higher accuracy.
PSA Response
Sounds like individual graders measure cards. I find this shocking... and laughable. Here's a 200dpi scan of the card I asked about. For anyone not familiar, DPI means dots-per-inch. Each dot is a pixel. An inch would be 200 pixels x 200 pixels. If the card is 500 pixels wide, then it is 2.5 inches exactly. When I measure cards I take 2 measurements for each length near the corners. This helps me detect slant-cut cards and trimmed cards in online images.
The card measures 499 pixels wide and 698 pixels long. I gave up 1 pixel in both lengths and used 498 wide x 697 long.
498 pixels / 200 pixels-per-inch = 2.490 inches
697 pixels / 200 pixels-per-inch = 3.485 inches
The 1973 Topps cards are nominally specified as 2.5 inches by 3.5 inches. The card I purchased in a PSA slab as a PSA 8, cracked, and subsequently graded happens to be short in both dimensions.
-0.010 inches in width
-0.015 inches in length
As the PSA rep. specifies the variance allowed is 0.03125 inches, or 1/32nd of an inch. Admittedly, I didn't get the card laying straight in the holder before scanning, but when I saw the measurements I figured even if I added a pixel or two on the hypotenuse it wasn't going to shift it out of spec.
PSA Response
PSA wraps this email up with this bit about how I might be frustrated with changing opinions. I'm rarely frustrated with the grade I receive with respect to the quality of the card. I admit I am a bit frustrated that PSA cannot accurately measure cards and the suggestion that this is an opinion and that I might get lucky resubmitting the card is a bit trite and off-putting.
I see a fair amount of comments about grading and those discussions almost always include someone purporting that the grading companies are using "AI". I really hope I'm not the only person here who does a hard eye roll every time they see that. I think the fact that they haven't achieved useful consistency from basic Computer Vision processes speaks to their limited use of modern technology.
For all I know these cards were trimmed and slabbed by PSA previously. I purchased them with the assumption that PSA is an expert in determining the authenticity and legitimacy of the card and that their brand provides something of a guarantee, even if it is not officially a guarantee.
I am very happy with PSA that I received an answer to my request to know the variance allowed for grading. I appreciate the transparency there. I think they should publish this information on their site.
If you get a resolution on this then let us know. I've had many many cards I'd subbed that were returned as Min Size that I sent in again and they were graded the second time through. I only do vintage so I have my own opinion that there's so much variation from older cards and inexperienced graders are just really inexperienced.
Inconsistency seems to be the consistency...
The rep I'm speaking with, who I have to assume is both speaking as an agent of PSA, is firm in the assessment that the physical size of the card is open to the interpretation of the grader. They have used the term "subjective" in emails to clarify that it is an opinion, and they have further asserted that the opinion may change if I was to resubmit the card. I am assuming that some of the tougher questions I have asked are reviewed before response as most questions are answered within a day while a few of the tougher ones I mention have taken a few days before a response is provided.
This N6 is something that has started popping up for me with recent submissions over the last 3+ months and in my last submission it was 3 cards out of 9 total. 2 of the 3 were from PSA slabs which were graded 8 and 1 was from a SGC holder - also 8. I'm hearing from a few other people that they are having the same experience - many times resubmitting the same card and receiving a grade.
One of the people I spoke to referred me to a Sports Card Nonsense video which discussed this subject with a dealer who had a similar experience.
This from a company which has spoken openly about training graders, monitoring process trends to inform improvements to their grading consistency. So on one hand they acknowledge that graders make mistakes but that doesn't mean they will stand behind their product.
My final request was to get vouchers for the 3 cards to submit, in the slab, under review and they refused, again asserting that the graders opinion is final.
This reeks of a company which believes that their position in the market is unassailable. Let's see what Blockbuster, Toys-R-Us, Borders, Blackberry, Compaq, Pan Am, Sears, Tower Records, and Enron think.
Maybe my ruler shrunk.
The ol' shrinking steel ruler trick.
That’s an interesting reply. I’m not even sure how there can be subjectivity in a MINIMUM size, right? Especially with all the bragging about scanning and AI. I don’t get it.
Seems like there’s something else going on internally that’s creating these type returns. I’ve also been getting a ton returned recently.
I thought it was due to over reliance on AI/computer evaluations to the detriment of an eye test.
Seems very weird.
It does feel like they have felt that way for many years but I think part of the problem with a comp like that is its like Toys R Us bought Target at a moment when they felt their hold on the toy market shifting. Or Yahoo buying Google when they saw their search results pull back some.
Outside of wanting to keep certain sets/collections that had already been built up in the PSA holder, I feel like a lot of people could have or will grow to accept cards in SGC holders. If you have one Mays or Aaron card that looks nice that you think PSA will be harsh on, sure, why not SGC. I think people were/are growing to see SGC as an alternative. $15 a card and 5 day turnaround and better results and mix a 1957 sports card and a 2024 sports card and a Mars Attacks card and a Pokemon card and a modern auto card (at the same rate) in the same order. Hard not to like.
But after the SGC acquisition PSA can be whoever they feel like being. If you dont like doing business with us fine, we dont care, go do business with us instead. I just hope SGC remains unique and independent but doubt they will.
PSA knows they bought the real threat and now dont need to adapt to please any customers to keep them from fleeing. They know Beckett will get some /99 auto cards and they wont feel the pain of not getting that business. They dont have to feel CGC is a threat. So it can be the same as if Yahoo bought Google years ago. You dont like us, go use Bing. Yeah, we know you wont. Or DuckDuckGo. Have fun. We ain't changing.
Didn’t Beckett just get bought too? I wonder if they throw some money towards their grading service to take back some market share. Seems like it can be a cash cow if you get the collector’s trust back these days.
PSA is incredible! They are so smart, they can reject a card that measures big enough as too small, and when you point it out. You're still wrong!
I had many such arguments with them over the years and have simply given up.
Just keep sending the card in time and time again, someday it will get graded properly. The best one I experienced was a card that came back MC. I don't submit anything that's not near perfectly centered, so I checked it to see if it was "square", it was.
Resubmitted and got a "9". Great racket to do your job wrong and still get paid.
I felt that someone from this department (autographs ) would get a chuckle or two from this signed Lincoln cent.
The coin's date has been determined as it has a few errors. LOL
Even Cy Young, would consider this, small ball.
All photos are from the same coin.
The two on top are the same photo but one is inverted to show wings and a baseball centered, With stitches when butted up together
The ball and wings oval photo, is the actual image from his head stone. Creepy huh ?
Bottom is a signature, looking like the spelling could use some work.
Don't shoot the messenger.
I don’t know what I’m looking at there.
Here’s more meat for the grinder.
1975 Topps N.L. Rookie Stars with Tony Perez.
Pop 6 (None Higher). Happy with the result - very clean card.
Much nicer example than the one I upgraded.
Man, I love Tony Perez. I just had these slabbed this fall. All 3 were obtained by mail in the 80s and I finally wanted them encased. (Yours is much cooler!)
Perez was such a clutch player. Great TTM autos.
Getting some of my 86 fleer BBs signed lately. He’s one that came out nice. Card I pulled from a pack.
This one is actually back at PSA for review.
Bob Uecker was a pop 1 - none better. (Not the card - the man)
2025 HOF voting.
Ichiro Suzuki: 99.7% (first year)
CC Sabathia: 86.8% (first)
Billy Wagner: 82.5% (10th, final year)
Hoping to have an opportunity to get Ichiro's auto this year.
Carlos Beltrán: 70.3% (third)
Andruw Jones: 66.2% (eighth)
Chase Utley: 39.8% (second)
Álex Rodríguez: 37.1% (fourth)
Manny Ramírez: 34.3% (ninth)
Andy Pettitte: 27.9% (seventh)
Félix Hernández: 20.6% (first)
Bobby Abreu: 19.5% (sixth)
Jimmy Rollins: 18% (fourth)
Omar Vizquel: 17.8% (eighth)
Dustin Pedroia: 11.9% (first)
Mark Buehrle: 11.4% (fifth)
Francisco Rodríguez: 10.2% (third)
David Wright : 8.1% (second)
Torii Hunter: 5.1% (fifth)
~~Ian Kinsler: 2.5% (first)
Russell Martin: 2.3% (first)
Brian McCann: 1.8% (first)
Troy Tulowitzki: 1% (first)
Curtis Granderson: 0.8% (first)
Adam Jones: 0.8% (first)
Carlos González: 0.5% (first)
Hanley Ramírez: 0% (first)
Fernando Rodney: 0% (first)
Ben Zobrist: 0% (first)~~
What idiot didn't vote for Ichiro?
That's what I want to know too. Or Jr. Or Jeter.
I had the exact same reaction. Come On!
Or Ruth or Mays or Aaron or Seaver or Ripkin and the list goes on and on. Appears moronicy is not limited to any particular era.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Here’s a fun one. I’ve seen 4 of these in person, including mine. Would love to see the 3Q and the 4 and the other Authentic. Always wondered how many of these might exist.
New Reggie RC for my 500 HRs set.
Trio of Palmers.
I did a HOF Rookie card / PSA DNA run from 69-83 with a few hopefuls added in.