I don't recall about too many others, but Brett didn't like others making money off his name. He said something about it being wrong. I don't remember the full context of it, but that was his beef with it. He mentioned he loved giving his autograph to anyone who wanted it because it was Brett Favre's autograph. Those who wanted it because they could sell it, he didn't care for them. His issue was ... how can you tell the difference?

Enter the enormous amounts to pay for it...

---

The resale of those items are way better if the original person paid $50 than if they were to pay $400. Capitalism. If someone wants to resell an autograph for $50, it'll be hella easier than if they paid $400.. The $50 Hancock is much more profitable. No matter who it is.. if you paid $400 for the autograph and wanted to resell it, your chances of making any sort of decent money off it is pretty low.

---

I think that's what I was saying. You have to pay so much for it already, chances of turning a profit are limited.

---

Yup. We agreed.

---

I think it's bull. Sterling Sharpe comes to mind. He refused to sign anything and I later found out it was because he didn't want it being sold to the highest bidder. I remember finally catching up to him when I was I think 10 and asked "Mr Sharpe, Mr Sharpe!!! can you sign this please??" his response was he couldn't cuz his hands were full. One hand he had his helmet through his shoulder pads and his other hand had his cleats and something else. I of course offered to carry anything for him and he just smiled and continued walking at a brisk pace.

This was shortly before I learned of the greatness that is Barry Sanders, so Sharpe and Majik were hands down my most favorite athletes ... as I would have said it then 'in the whole wide world!'.

I still remember the devastation I felt. After trying so many times to get close enough to him to ask, I finally got there and was rejected.

I blamed Sterling at first, but as I got older I realized why and stubbornly understood. Which is partially why I dislike money so much, I strongly feel it ruins the true 'value' of things that should not have a price tag. Such as, autographs. It would have meant the world to me as a 10 year told to have his ink on my purple bordered '89 Score supplemental card of his.

---

Why the huge disparity in price based on what the autograph is written on?

---

If they don't want things resold on eBay, they could mark them with some insignia of authenticity (say, a serial number) and keep records of the signings. That way if things turned up on resale venues like eBay, they could go after the original recipient for violation of whatever terms they decided to impose.

---

Certain items hold a higher value on being sold than others. A signed napkin is going to get you less than a signed football cleat.

---

Good post.

I am sure this does piss off people like Brett. HOWEVER. The answer is very simple. DO NOT SIGN AN AUTOGRAPH unless it is personalized.

In other words ask the person who is asking for the autograph for their name and sign it "To Joe"

The fan gets a cool autograph... And it is not re-saleable to anyone other than a person named Joe.

---

well, all i care about my brett favre items now (all signed) is the money i can get in about 20 years, especially for the classic minihelmets

---