Tuesday, March 23, 2010

How Not To Do A Cut Auto, Volume 1,000,000

Topps has a record of doing terrible things to cut auto cards, and in all honesty, they arent even the only one to do it industry wide. Either way, this card was brought to my attention, mainly because of how terrible the card looks. As usual, Topps didnt even try to make this card look good, and did even a worse job cutting the sigs. Cosigners has always been one of the worst looking products on the market, so this definitely doesnt surprise me.

Bascially, Cut autos have jumped the shark, and this one from 2007 was a good example of it. Collectors still clamor for any cut they can get their hands on for some reason, but this should show a little bit of why its important to think twice before emptying the bank account. For this price, one could easily obtain a Mantle Signed ball, a Dimaggio signed ball, an Arod ball, and a case to display them.

With that in mind, why even let the thought cross your mind to buy this junk?


  1. OMG. This is a real card? You have to be shitting me. WTF is that? An autograph abortion is what it is. You have this tiny A-Rod dominated by extra white space and half of Mantle's name. Seriously who the fuck designed this card? Is there no sense of pride in ones work? Who finished this, showed it to their boss and said, "Yeah, looks great. Get it to packaging ASAP." Unbelievable, really.

  2. I was a HUGE fan of "Nickey" Mantle.

  3. That card is UGLY! Wouldn't bother me if someone hadn't dropped over a $1000 on it... Freaking stoopid and did I mention ugly? I would love to add an auto of the Mick and Joe D. to my collection, but NOT like this...

  4. I don't know they are some large autographs, It is not like Mantle and DiMaggio are going to sign anymore. (Though I think they signed a lot in their day).

    Sometimes I feel like I am reading about the Republicans and HealthCare. Topps has a record of doing terrible things.....

  5. I hate all cuts equally, really. Even the well designed ones. It's the fourth generation antique/collectible dealer in me. I'd rather have the original signed item, no matter what shape it's in, than to see it cut up.

  6. I am in agreement with the Paraffin Marsupial.

    99% of cut signature cards are unattractive and undesirable, regardless of the autograph subject. I don't buy any unopened product, nor secondary market singles, of cut signature cards.

    Any autograph historian will tell you that an auto loses huge amounts of value and intrinsic interest once any portion of it is cut, torn, or scuffed. The DiMaggio and Mantle autos in this surgical malpractice have been ruined by the arbitrary constraints of the card design and orientation.

    I understand card companies using cut sigs as a solution to the problem of making new products of subjects a little too dead to help them out. However, there are more ways to do it wrong vs. doing it right.

    The irony is that the most logical cases for a cut sig (a deceased subject with a rare enough auto population to make cutting worthwhile) makes it a greater shame when the signature is separated from its original media.

    Which would you rather have--the Declaration of Independence, or John's Hancock trimmed and poorly inserted into the dimensions of a card?

    I'd rather see redemption prizes of the full signature on its original media, than another cut signature failure.