Comments on: Sticker vs. On Card

By: Chris B.

Chris B. — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:44:47 +0000

I can’t recall the blog that I read this on, but someone was noticing their auto stickers are starting to peel up. Maybe he’s not caring for his cards like he should, but I have a feeling he is, since he has a card collecting blog. That really makes me think twice about buying sticker autos on eBay. I want my cards to last.

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:56:06 +0000

While im content with any auto I may be lucky enough to pull, i’d much rather have an on-card auto. Sure, the player “touched” both auto’s. But 1 is an auto’d card, and the other is an auto’d sticker stuck on a card. If you purchased an auto’d baseball of Jose, and when it arrived you noticed it was a clear sticker stuck to a baseball….would you be happy w/ your purchase? If one of those sticker auto’s was on a Pepsi can, would you consider it to be an auto’d Pepsi can? I would’nt…to me it would be a Pepsi can w/ a sticker on it. Just my 2 cents.

By: Todd

Todd — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:10:41 +0000

I have to say I like on card as long as it’s in a good spot. One of the best looking auto cards I have is a Topps Gallery Felix Hernandez Penmanship and is just beautiful! But as with most cards I’ll take any auto I can get. My biggest pet peeve is I wish I could read most of them, I play a fun game with people and try to see if they can guess letters in either the first or last name for most auto’s! Try it some time it’s very amusing

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:45:41 +0000

I like the on-card autos because it looks like I went to the park with my dad an hour early to watch batting practice and get a few players to sign, just like 1976 again. I don’t turn down the stickered autos, of course.

By: Joey

Joey — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:00:46 +0000

I prefer the on card auto with the biggest reason being that I have pulled several sticker autos where the auto runs off the sticker. Plus I wonder if twenty years from now the sticker will start to come off.

That Konerko is terrible. The Goudeys have even less prime signing space because they are smaller too.

By: chemgod

chemgod — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:45:00 +0000

The sticker looks better but kills the look of the card. I perfer the on the card better. But that’s just my 2 cents.

By: Ryan Cracknell

Ryan Cracknell — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:35:40 +0000

Band aids are okay if a couple of basic rules are followed:

1) The sticker is incorporated into the design of the card. Many early products with the stickers and most every Donruss set from back in the day simply had a sticker put somewhere on the base card to make it essentially a parallel of sorts. Topps and UD both seem to have this figured out now.

2) The autograph must be contained on the sticker. There’s tons of really ugly autographs out there where the signature has run off the sides of the sticker. The end result is an ugly card no matter the design.

By: dayf

dayf — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:37:55 +0000

“One reason that I hear often about why people prefer on-card auto’s is because the player has actually touched the card itself. While this may be true, I am almost certain the player probably touched the sticker, as well.”

Exactly. Who cares if the player touched the card. I want an autograph, not a fingerprint. I’ll take any autos I can get.

By: Steve G.

Steve G. — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:50:13 +0000

I could go either way. That Konerko sig looks nice though.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:11:17 +0000

I prefer sticker. When it is on card by 75% of players it is haphazzard and sloppy if the signing area is not clearly defined. Stickers can be made to work with the card. That is one reason I collect signatures on 3×5’s and not cards themselves. You can make a cool display w/ pics you like and the 3×5’s.