At first I didn't like the idea of signed stickers on cards. But I won on Ebay a American Horror Story dual card with Sarah Paulson/Connie Britton autographs on it for a very good price. It came in the mail this week and the card looks so amazing! Didn't think it would look so good with stickers. So I no longer hate the idea of autograph stickers on cards. What about you? Yes or No?

When I was collecting:

90% No
10% Yes

No, No, No, did i mention No?

On card is my preference but I am in the minority saying I do not mind a sticker auto.

I second Solfie's No with mine Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

regards

John

On card 1,000%, but if I want a certain autograph in a certain title and there is no other option, I will take a sticker provided the design is acceptable.

I don't mind the stickers, but I prefer on card.

I really just wish the stickers were bigger so fewer signatures were going off the sticker and the celebs could have larger signatures.

If there is an option - On card. But I would rather have a sticker auto than none at all

Besides the overall look of a sticker, the biggest objection I have is that we have no way of knowing how many autographs were signed because they are going to be leaked out in dribs-and-drabs over the course of many products yet to be created. So when you pay a higher price for scarcity because some star only has 50 autograph cards in the product, that's not knowing about the other 450 signed stickers still on the roll.

You could of course compare that to RA's storing away of autographs on different card designs for future releases, but the difference is that the cards themselves are already made and held. Stickers do not require the card, so they can be acquired in higher numbers without having to expense out for the card at the same time. They can be used to make dual, triple or any multiple combination auto cards in any number of limited artificial rarity. They can be applied to 8x10s or any sort of licensed item really They can be held for any time and sold off just on their own if need be. In short, sticker autographs provide numerous benefits for the manufacturer, while adding absolutely nothing of value to the collector other than the fact that the sticker exists.

Is it better than nothing? If you want it, yes.

When stickers are worked into the design of the card they can look fine. When they're just slapped on with little to no thought it generally looks terrible.

No, never ever never. No!

On card always triumphs over a sticker.
Stickers are lazy,just give it some effort.
Did I already mention I find them ugly?

It pains me to admit but I still got the four sticker autos from Iron Man 2. The only set ever made in which the sticker fits the design. But really the only set ever. Need to sell those too one day. But I like them?! Arghh, I hate collecting...

Would you rather have the autograph on the card the signatory held in their hands? Or would you rather have a flimsy sticker the signatory signed which was then put onto a card by a manufacturer?

Stickers can be put on anything and in any combination. An autograph card is a "one-off" product which makes it special.

Also, autographs on cards are far less likely to come off a card than a sticker.

Having made it perfectly clear that i would never have sticker autographs i now find i have two of them.

They are from the Indiana Jones & the Crystal Skull set.

John Hurt & Karen Allen.

To be fair they do not look as bad as i thought they might.

I have all the X-Files sticker autographs from I WANT TO BELIEVE and I guess they look okay, but they could be better. I just looked at them, and some of the doubles do have the sticker a bit crooked. I haven't looked at them in a while, so that was something nice to do.

Not counting stickers that may have been put on crooked or signatures that may have run off the edges, hands down, the worst sticker autographs I have ever seen belong to Inksworks' Supernatural Connections and Supernatural Season 3.

The design of the cards was bad, but the patterned stickers ruined the autographs to the point where it hurts to look at them. They are probably the only sticker signatures that actually do look worse in hand than in photos. I think they claimed it was a security measure, but how anyone ever approved it after seeing it I couldn't imagine and twice no less.

And The Spirit was just as bad, so that's at least three that I can recall.

quote:

Originally posted by MvG:
Stickers are lazy,just give it some effort.

It takes more effort to do sticker autos as after they're signed somebody needs to put them on the cards.

I do know manufacturers also rely on stickers because there are many times they print off cards, send to the signer and never receive them back. It probably happens more than we realize, and costs can add up quickly. I think this is also why so many autograph sets aren't numbered 1, 2, 3, etc. - If the signer who is #4 in the set never returns the cards, now there's a hole between card #3 and #5.

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Dastick Jr.:

I do know manufacturers also rely on stickers because there are many times they print off cards, send to the signer and never receive them back. It probably happens more than we realize, and costs can add up quickly.

Apparently the return rate is a lot better if they can get the product in the hands of the celeb immediately after they sign a contract, this another reason for sticker autographs -- they can overnighted immediately after signing the contract, and in the celeb's hands the next day.

Stickers limit the natural flow of many signers. It is always interesting to compare on card signatures with stickers by the same celebrity. Jeffry Dean Morgan's autograph was so screwed up by a Topps sticker that he actually claimed it wasn't his signature.

Sylvester Stallone's sticker sigs looked awful.

Always prefer on card but all sticker sigs don't look terrible. If it's a signed sticker or nothing it is rare that I walk away with nothing.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mykdude, June 11, 2020 04:04 PM

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Dastick Jr.:
When stickers are worked into the design of the card they can look fine. When they're just slapped on with little to no thought it generally looks terrible.

Obviously I prefer on card but sometimes they can be worked into the design and look just fine. First one that comes to mind is Guardians of the Galaxy.

quote:

Originally posted by ifish73:

Obviously I prefer on card but sometimes they can be worked into the design and look just fine. First one that comes to mind is Guardians of the Galaxy.

Interesting!

Example of good design for autographs: Guardians of the Galaxy
Example of terrible design for autographs: Guardians of the Galaxy 2