08 January 2024

Today's Mail, and an Autograph Authenticity Question

One of today's cards from the mailbox raises a question I've posed on Twitter before as to the authenticity of the autograph on the card. I'll present evidence later in the post.


I finally got this Jeremy Peña Topps Now autographed base relic card from the 2022 World Series. The paperwork says I ordered it on November 4th, 2022, so I've been waiting a bit over a year for it. It's a pretty cool card, with a patch of base from the Astros' 2022 World Series win.


The hologram sticker pulls up a result on MLB's authenticator which says it's part of a 3rd base used during game 5 of the World Series, the game featured on the card.


The autograph matches pretty closely with another Topps Now autograph I received bearing Peña's signature, this one from the ALDS. He had a pretty good run in the playoffs, proving to be a key figure in the Astros' eventual win. I've tried to gather all of the Topps Now cards featuring the Astros through the regular season and playoffs in recent years, although I limit the collection mostly to base cards and the occasional autograph or relic if I can grab them.


Here's where things get interesting with the signature. His prospect cards seem to feature this squiggle on them, which looks nothing like the neat print on the Topps Now cards. Could he have updated his signature once he hit the big leagues? Did he have some help signing cards at some point? If so, which ones are real autographs? This is not my card, it's just an image I pulled from eBay a while ago when the question first came up in my mind.


Further muddying the waters is yet a third variation of his signature, found again on a card I do not own, but pulled an image of from the internet. The 'J' and the 'P' especially do not match the prospect auto or the Topps Now autos that I've seen. Could they be signed by the same person? It's hard for me to say. My signature changed a little from young adulthood to present, but not to the degree that his has over a much shorter period of time. Again, what does Peña's real signature look like, and could he have signed all 4 of these cards himself? Maybe, but maybe not. The variance between them in a relatively short period of time casts doubt in my mind about them, but I haven't done enough research to know what his real signature looks like, or whether he has changed it over time.



My other card for today features Caitlin Clark, the player who is lighting up the college game lately with her heroic performances and getting regular appearances on Bowman U Now cards from Topps. I've started a small collection of her easily-obtained cards, which means mostly Bowman U cards and the occasional base card from other releases, as any parallels or inserts are outside the budget I have for this player collection at the moment. Maybe she will go on to play in the WNBA, but in reality her star will probably peak in the college game as it gets a lot more airplay than the WNBA does. Even if she goes on to win accolades in the WNBA, it's an uphill battle to achieve real stardom in that league from a collecting perspective. I still chase WNBA cards, and really cards from several women's leagues, as I think women's sports are important and fun to watch and follow. I realize there are a lot of people who write them off as inferior products, but I'm in the opposite camp and try to support the major women's leagues where I can. 



6 comments:

  1. I agree with the autograph issues. I think Topps/Fanatics should actually go back to witnessing the signature (no more stickers either) rather than use a form letter signed stating they (the player) actually signed the cards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately I think it's gotten so big that personally-witnessed autographs would require a serious retraction in the number of autographs packed out in products. Maybe that would be a good thing long-term, but in the short run I think collectors would struggle with the number of hitless boxes.

      Delete
  2. Hope you're able to figure out Pena's real signature... or maybe he did go through different phases and signed three different ways. It's definitely an interesting mystery. As an autograph collector... I think it's insane that card companies send sheets of stickers to players and they aren't witnessing them sign them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not dedicated enough to sniff out which ones are real, so I'll probably just assume I've got the real deal until someone shows me otherwise. It's more fun than assuming that most of the autos and relics out there are fake. The autograph industry has gotten so big that I doubt it's realistic to have a company employee witness every one. They'd have to cut way back on autographs in products if they went to a witness-only program.

      Delete
  3. There's definitely something fishy going on with those autographs. I'm surprised that the Twitter or Blowout cards detectives haven't dug into this like they usually do with this sort of thing. If I had to guess, based just on his age and where he's originally from, I'd say that the Bowman Chrome squiggle signature is his. People can improve their signatures, with much effort, but like you said, it isn't likely to have occurred that dramatically, that quickly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am also surprised that no one has run it to ground yet. Maybe he's just not a big enough fish for anyone to really care. I just have a hard time believing that some of those letters were written by the same hand within a relatively short period of time.

      Delete