A reason to hate, or love, sticker autographs

A few years ago when Kirby Puckett died, I contemplated what Upper Deck would do with whatever autographed stickers they had left over from a previous signing. I argued that it would be somewhat disrespectful for the company to use the signatures after his death. To date, I do not think I have seen a new issue since his passing.

But the question came back to me late Friday night when I saw this 2010 Topps 206 Johnny Podres autograph. Podres died in  January 2008.

If Topps hadn’t used stickers when it conducted a signing with Mr. Podres , we would not have this card. Then again, is this a card we should have? Should autographed cards not be cards actually signed by the players?

I suppose the same argument could be made for cut signatures — which I am totally in favor of as long as the subject is no longer living — but there’s just something weird about a company owning a bunch of stickers signed by now deceased subjects and being able to use them whenever they wish.

One Response to “A reason to hate, or love, sticker autographs”

  1. I don’t have a problem with sticker autographs, except when they are badly designed.

    If you value an autograph because it represents an interaction with the player, any sort of autographed card that you didn’t get signed yourself is meaningless.

    If you value the autograph because it represents a unique moment of the player’s time, it shouldn’t matter if he signed a sticker or a piece of cardboard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: