Foil Sticker vs."On-Card" Autographs
Interesting contrast and sometimes contentious debate.

Update 2/28/07: After some reflection and further review - I've decided to follow the suggestion made by MrWhiteSox30 and change this page to read "on-card" instead of "in-person". There seems to be a greater consensus among other collectors than I had first observed.

In 2001, when Playoff Corp. purchased the Donruss brand name, they started using signed foil stickers and affixing them onto collectibles (like cards) instead of having the player sign the actual items. Can't tell you how upset I was to see Playoff offering them up as "autographed" memorabilia - I started to have flashbacks of the old Pinnacle company. It was, if you think about it, a somewhat shady attempt at calling something autographed when the truth is that the item was never touched by the famous person it purports to showcase.

While it's true that the athlete did sign the stickers - you could argue that those stickers could be placed on anything. Suppose someone were to stick them onto random beer cans found in a garbage dump? Do we say they're 'autographed beer cans'? Or are they just pieces of garbage which happen to have signed stickers affixed to them? This question goes to the very heart of the autograph market.

What collectors are trying to do is 'connect' with whomever or whatever (movie star, athlete, famous location, etc). The goal being: To be closer to the "source". It's why tourists buy ludicrous items that have no other value than "it came from there"; proudly showing off the item to friends and family, a testament to their journey or adventure. Also the same reason why people put up posters or other ephemera on their walls - they're reconnecting to a pleasurable experience or memory.

If a fan obtains something that their hero has touched - it gives that fan a sense that they're connected to that other person in a deeply felt way. Something they can take home; their own personal "piece of that person" so to speak. I know someone who actually wears a broken piece of the Berlin Wall around her neck because she feels so connected to that historic event.

So, the question is: Does the addition of a piece of signed foil onto a collectible establish that connection?

For me, after a great deal of introspective searching, I can now say: Yes. It does give a sense of connection to The Big Hurt, particularly knowing that he authorized the use of those stickers for a very specific purpose. It's not like they're going to be used for something ridiculous like the aforementioned random beer can. The stickers provide both he and his fans the easiest and, perhaps more importantly, inexpensive means to get his autograph. If we fans insisted on everything be "on-card only" - the flow of collectibles would turn into a trickle. And instead of paying a reasonable $30 bucks for an autographed card, you could realistically see a $70 starting price. And the top-tier limited edition cards going for dollar amounts that'll make your nose bleed. It stands to reason that Frank, or any other famous person, would never be able to sign "on-card" all the collectibles the market is actually willing to bear. They would spend all their time just signing stuff and never doing the thing/profession we fans so admire in the first place. So, after a lot of reflection (no pun intended), I'm now at ease with the idea of a signed sticker being called autographed memorabilia.

HOWEVER, I will add this caveat:
You'll find that "on-card" autographs do provide a much stronger fan connection. You can see a practical application of this by watching an auction of similar items. Go to an auction site and find a 'sticker' signed card and then find a similar signed 'on-card' autograph card. You'll often see that the on-card version will usually sell for double, sometimes more than double, than the foil sticker version. There is a noticeable price differential.