Auto Vs Memorabilia

[frisbeesteve]

Hi All,

Just sitting here pondering our wonderful hobby, and was thinking about how important autographed cards and/or memorabilia cards have become. While in person autos go WAY back, and card companies began at least experimenting with getting cards signed by players to then be inserted into packs (or obtained via mail-in redemption cards) in the early 90s, the practice of card companies obtaining signatures and then inserting those cards into packs didn't become mainstream until 1996-97's Skybox Autographics set. On the memorabilia side, Upper Deck kicked off the memorabilia craze in 1997-98 with their Game Jersey cards, which then continued and began to be picked up by other card companies, as well as to eventually include more than just jersey swatches by utilizing patches, pieces of game-used shoes/balls/floor/headbands/towels etc.

I've always been more interested in autos, despite very much enjoying and collecting memorabilia cards as well. If I was only allowed to keep a single card in my collection, and it was to either include an on-card auto, or a super-premium piece of game-used memorabilia (i.e. logoman, or any other type of premium patch or memorabilia piece), I would choose the autographed card, and it wouldn't be close.

Would love to hear others' thoughts and choices on this topic.

[AbraCalabro]

That's a tough one, but the first thing that came to mind is, why not go with an auto patch and get the best of both worlds?

As for me, I guess it would have to be an autograph, for the simple reason that my favorite player's memorabilia cards were not released during his prime years. There is not a single Reignman memorabilia card featuring him as a member of the SuperSonics from Upper Deck, which in my opinion is the undisputed #1 for memorabilia stuff, among other things. Sure, he saw inclusion in the 98/99 UD Game Jersey set and yes, I still have two of those cards with different colors of the Jersey black / blue, but it's not quite the same. They could have squeezed him into the 97/98 set, but it didn't happen...I think he was traded (left) at the worst time, hobby-wise (and career-wise) but this is the reasoning that goes into my choosing the autograph. He's got some outstanding career-prime autographed cards from 1996's SPx #40 buyback auto /250, to the following year's SPx Pro-Motion Auto /100, as well as the 96/97 pack inserted UD Autographs from the flagship UD product in which the 'Game Dated' features were introduced.

I have a few patch cards, four if we're including the Sneaker cards, from Panini (1x Cavs, 3x Sonics) and while it's about time someone made patch cards of the Reignman from his Sonics days, it just doesn't hold the same kind of weight. Autograph all day.

[frisbeesteve]

That's a tough one, but the first thing that came to mind is, why not go with an auto patch and get the best of both worlds?

As for me, I guess it would have to be an autograph, for the simple reason that my favorite player's memorabilia cards were not released during his prime years. There is not a single Reignman memorabilia card featuring him as a member of the SuperSonics from Upper Deck, which in my opinion is the undisputed #1 for memorabilia stuff, among other things. Sure, he saw inclusion in the 98/99 UD Game Jersey set and yes, I still have two of those cards with different colors of the Jersey black / blue, but it's not quite the same. They could have squeezed him into the 97/98 set, but it didn't happen...I think he was traded (left) at the worst time, hobby-wise (and career-wise) but this is the reasoning that goes into my choosing the autograph. He's got some outstanding career-prime autographed cards from 1996's SPx #40 buyback auto /250, to the following year's SPx Pro-Motion Auto /100, as well as the 96/97 pack inserted UD Autographs from the flagship UD product in which the 'Game Dated' features were introduced.

I have a few patch cards, four if we're including the Sneaker cards, from Panini (1x Cavs, 3x Sonics) and while it's about time someone made patch cards of the Reignman from his Sonics days, it just doesn't hold the same kind of weight. Autograph all day.

Agree that if possible, a patch auto would be the choice; but I wanted to illustrate my preference of auto > memorabilia by specifying that THE only card one could own, would only allowed to have either an on-card auto, OR a piece of premium game-worn memorabilia. I suspect that at least some will choose the memorabilia, so am hoping for and looking forward to more replies on the topic.

It is indeed unfortunate, that Kemp's best playing years (Sonics) preceded most autograph and all memorabilia releases, as well as other cool inserts and parallels, etc. I'm sure we could get a long list of folks whose preferred players pre-dated all kinds of hobby goodness. I know it doesn't work for everyone, but that's why I'm grateful and still enjoy collecting, post playing year cards. While my favorite player indeed got to be active during some great years, I'd be sad to have avoided some of the beautiful cards and sets that have come out after his retirement following the 2002-03 season.

[mindcycle]

Tough question!

I think for modern players (Panini era) I’d rather have a solid memorabilia piece, like a logoman or crazy 1/1 jumbo patch. Auto cards, especially during a players rookie season, are so overproduced nowadays it’s ridiculous. Even if you land a low numbered parallel chances are there are 10 other parallels that look the exact same with different color foil or whatever.

Now for late 90’s, or even the early 2000’s stuff, I’d rather have an auto. Especially for players who were still active. For example, I really like the Skybox Century Mark autos. Even though they were just a foil change for the most part the fact they were hand numbered and there was just a single parallel makes them pretty special to come across IMO.

[SacKingsCards]

Great topic! For me, I would take a nice jumbo piece of chunky, game- worn stitched patch over an on card auto if I had to choose. It has more significance to me than an auto I'd game worn because the player wore it while competing in an NBA game, which is why at the end of the day I'm involved in all this: to root for my team's (rare) success. So having a piece of that history of the team, player, and league is so cool to me. Hopefully my point is coming across better than I feel it is.

What's interesting that I'm not just thinking of is the player's handling of the card itself. Of course, a player never touches a card featuring a game worn patch but holds and signs an on card auto in his hands. I suppose the jersey use in a game by that player overcomes that in my eyes.

Aesthetically, I just find a nice patch so beautiful to look at.

[frisbeesteve]

Great answers, guys!

Even after a mere four opinions on the topic, there already seems to be some degree of balance (favor on each side/option), which is part of what I think helps to make and keep this hobby interesting. I really am a fan of game-used memorabilia cards as well, even simple jersey swatches can make me happy (though admittedly not as happy as an interesting and multi-colored patch from a jersey, especially if I think I can tell what part of the jersey it came from), haha.

I guess it is probably my age (and some very old-fashioned-ness that goes along with it) that has me appreciating the autograph aspect the most. Even when I was young, I remember being taken to see some children's play productions, where a popular activity after the show, is for the attendees (especially the kids) to take their programs out, with the chance to briefly meet and get their favorite actors/actresses from the show, to sign. This was always a lot of fun, as I remember I always prioritized finding and getting the signatures of the "pretty ladies and girls" from the show. Something about that brief interaction, and capture of something personal (their autograph as well as a friendly smile) probably holds some degree of responsibility for my love of autographs. Also, when I hold any given autographed card, I wonder what the player was thinking when they signed it. "Wow, this is a pretty cool card!", or "Is this the millionth one of these I've signed?"

[Deadshot]

I'd rather have a premium jumbo patch of some sort, because in a lot of cases, I could go and get another card signed myself. I don't really have the skillset to buy a game-worn item, cut it up, and insert it into a great looking trading card.

[frisbeesteve]

I think that I may be confusing everyone with my "one or the other, but not both" rules/scenario, and for that, I apologize. While I attempted to illustrate an obviously extreme and unrealistic scenario (we can only own a single card going forward, to remember our hobby by, and it can either have an on-card autograph or a piece of game-worn memorabilia, but not both), I was hoping to use it to get everyone to really dig deep within themselves, as to what would be their true and final preference.

I hope that this provides some clarity, and thank you for bearing with me!

[FrankAZHP]

I'd choose an auto over a relic 99% of the time. I think I'm just sick of the overproduction of relic cards from the last 20 years. UD did it solid originally by making them rare to pull and game used, and since then it's been beaten to the ground and ruined with "player worn".

Sure autos are done in bulk nowadays too, but I'd still choose an auto.

[SacKingsCards]

Really interesting and diverse answers and opinions. I will say that while both types of cards have been bastardized in a way in recent years (sticker autos and unassociated memorabilia) at least owning a sticker auto card still gives you an authentic auto of the player. The unassociated memorabilia gives you nothing meaningful, in my opinion. Of course, your mileage may vary. Very true that in both cases overproduction is an issue as it is throughout the hobby now.

Great answers, guys!

Even after a mere four opinions on the topic, there already seems to be some degree of balance (favor on each side/option), which is part of what I think helps to make and keep this hobby interesting. I really am a fan of game-used memorabilia cards as well, even simple jersey swatches can make me happy (though admittedly not as happy as an interesting and multi-colored patch from a jersey, especially if I think I can tell what part of the jersey it came from), haha.

I guess it is probably my age (and some very old-fashioned-ness that goes along with it) that has me appreciating the autograph aspect the most. Even when I was young, I remember being taken to see some children's play productions, where a popular activity after the show, is for the attendees (especially the kids) to take their programs out, with the chance to briefly meet and get their favorite actors/actresses from the show, to sign. This was always a lot of fun, as I remember I always prioritized finding and getting the signatures of the "pretty ladies and girls" from the show. Something about that brief interaction, and capture of something personal (their autograph as well as a friendly smile) probably holds some degree of responsibility for my love of autographs. Also, when I hold any given autographed card, I wonder what the player was thinking when they signed it. "Wow, this is a pretty cool card!", or "Is this the millionth one of these I've signed?"

This is a great point and I think would end up making autos more generally sought after than memorabilia cards. Autos go beyond sports or cards. People have sought after autographs of historical figures, musical artists, authors, politicians, etc. on all sorts of items for decades. So I would guess a poll of the entire hobby would lean heavily towards autos.

[workingclasscards]

I love patches, but I've seen a lot more demand for autos.
Autos, especially on-card autos are king in the hobby.