[blackitalian]

Would you rather own a high end autograph or a high end vintage baseball card??

[nyyankeesfan28]

If it was the same player (card/auto wise), I'd have to go with an auto.

[jacobystealshome]

vintage baseball card. why? simple:

the majority of high end autos - especially of older players - are fakes. even the stuff from JSA and other authenticators. for instance: mantle not only signed a lot, but his signature is remarkably easy to fake, and it's extremely hard for authenticators to tell a decent fake from the real thing

[jlandry287]

vintage baseball card. why? simple:

the majority of high end autos - especially of older players - are fakes. even the stuff from JSA and other authenticators. for instance: mantle not only signed a lot, but his signature is remarkably easy to fake, and it's extremely hard for authenticators to tell a decent fake from the real thing

Very good point. But if choosing between a 21st century auto or vintage... It all depends on the player

[captezra]

Definetaly I would go with vintage because the look and feel of having the card of lets say Hank Aaron is very different from having a card with a signature that could be faked or easily removed

[zeprock]

I would go with a card every time. I only collect autographs on cards. The ones on baseballs, bats, jerseys and paper look awesome but they are just not what I collect and thus don't appeal to me. An auto on a card may not be as valuable as an auto on a piece of memorabilia but I don't care. If it doesn't fit into a protective card holder, I don't want to try and find a place to store it.

[hongkongfooey]

vintage all the way...autographs can always be had but every vintage card has a back story of surviving for 50 plus years. holding those vintage cards just puts you back in a simpler time

[nyyankeesfan28]

I said auto assuming both it and the vintage card are authentic.

[thepozr]

I would have said auto up until I started getting into vintage. The vintage are just pretty cool to have.