Why do collectors have their jerseys signed?

**mad87man** · 01-19-2013, 05:29 PM

Re: Why do collectors have their jerseys signed?

some people think it looks nice. sometimes the jersey comes signed. that's like asking why do people like the jersey unwashed? its all prefernce really. i personally don't like signed jerseys, but if others do, who am i to judge?

**genius** · 01-19-2013, 06:09 PM

Re: Why do collectors have their jerseys signed?

I can totally understand someone having a very special jersey signed as long as it's not too intrusive on the shirt. A black sharpie on white durene for example pretty much ruins it for me. Signing on a number is much better, sleeve even better still. A jersey personalized to someone, rather than just signed by the athlete, probably takes away a lot of value on resale but those that have them signed like that likely don't have plans to sell.

I'd rather have no ink at all on anything though, other than a replica.

**icollectDCsports** · 01-19-2013, 06:44 PM

Re: Why do collectors have their jerseys signed?

This is one of those topics that comes up from time to time. People have different preferences. I think a lot of fans have autograph fever which means they want to get as many things signed as possible and they feel it adds something special to each item. And, for them, I suppose it does. While I don't mind signatures on bats and some other items such as cleats or catchers' gear, I much prefer jerseys not to be signed. I like a jersey to look just at it did on the field, and I think a jersey that you know is a legit gamer of a particular player needs nothing added. It's the real deal and that's what makes it special, not the autograph. I can see getting authentic jerseys auto'd as that's what would provide the personal link to the player, but the link for a gamer is that it actually was worn by the player.

I have passed on otherwise nice jerseys with signatures that I felt were too prominent for my liking. However, the exception is that I don't mind as much if a signature is signed neatly, and in a size that's not too huge, down on the tail which wouldn't be visible anyway when worn on the field. Particularly appropriate if there are tags on the tail where a signature wouldn't seem out of place. Not a fan of personalizations and don't see the need for a player to note "game worn" because that's something presumably I already knew.

But the bottom line remains that it's a matter of personal preference. I get more enjoyment out of a jersey that's in as close a condition as possible to being handed to me directly from the field.

**beaglegypsy003** · 01-19-2013, 07:47 PM

Re: Why do collectors have their jerseys signed?

As I've mentioned in some of my previous posts, the vast majority of my collection would be considered of common players. As such I don't think having autographs on them would affect their value. Also, I collect for the enjoyment and not as an investment. Why else would I have recently purchased a Bobby Singh CFL Winnipeg Blue Bombers jersey? Why the difference in it being okay to have a bat or cleats/shoes signed but not a jersey? They don't appear on the field of play with autographs on them. So I guess it comes down to preference and if it is for investment, don't have it signed.