Do you consider cards like these to be "On the Card" Autographs?
 

I was just thinking about this and thought that it may make for an interesting discussion. Do you consider cards like the examples below to be an on card auto? These cards were assembled prior to being signed by the athlete. I selected examples with ink outside of the auto window to make it easier to appreciate. Are cards with a "trapped" auto less desirable even if held by the athlete? Hoping for a few opinions. Thanks for looking!

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2kqxf4s][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50817162808_4b70188ac0_c.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2kqxf4s]Polish_20210109_121029520[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/181769741@N07/]

I do. I mean, technically, they're stickers, but they're incorporated into the card so well that I don't differentiate.

I'd lean more towards yes... now the value would depend on how much of the auto is cut off. Not sure i'd call it a true on card auto... but close enough for me. (Much better than a sticker)

I would say no, only because the signer never touches the card. They are given a blank sheet of stickers, squares, etc. They just sign them and send them in without any idea of what the card ends up looking like.

Just my 2 cents....

Some of you didn’t look at the photos...

......

They [B]are[/B] on card autographs/ desirability is up to the buyer / collector..... mostly chiming in to answer your initial question.
[B]Look how they signed the inserted material, and their signatures went outside the box, literally “on the card “ [/B]

In fact, they are so much “on card”, I’m surprised there’s not universal agreement :rolleyes:

Panini considers them to be on-card. They had a set of rookie autos with that design in 2014-15 Paramount. One of the major selling points of that product was they guaranteed all on-card autos. It was highly debated back then as well.

I prefer the embedded auto over a sticker auto but I still don’t consider them to be a true on-card auto. I appreciate a true on-card auto because the player, although briefly, interacted with and signed the actual card. With these they are only signing a piece of cardboard that is later incorporated into the card.

[QUOTE=SHowley2003;16848996]Panini considers them to be on-card. They had a set of rookie autos with that design in 2014-15 Paramount. One of the major selling points of that product was they guaranteed all on-card autos. It was highly debated back then as well.

I prefer the embedded auto over a sticker auto but I still don’t consider them to be a true on-card auto. I appreciate a true on-card auto because the player, although briefly, interacted with and signed the actual card. [B]With these they are only signing a piece of cardboard that is later incorporated into the card.[/B][/QUOTE]

while i agree somewhat, how was this later incorporated into the card?

[IMG]https://img.comc.com/i/Football/2012/Crown-Royale---Base---Gold-Holo-Foil/257/Brock-Osweiler.jpg?id=95ffa556-722d-41b1-a945-6a63e231c729&size=zoom[/IMG]

All three of your samples are on card. Literally, the ink on the pen runs onto the card.

I'm surprised that's how Panini had Robinson and Rodman sign the Immaculate cards.

Aren’t all the autos coming out or touching the windows?

[QUOTE=kingofsnake;16849012]Literally, the ink on the pen runs onto the card.[/QUOTE]

Does a true on card auto need the ink to run onto the card though? Thank you all for your insight!

If these aren't on cards autos, i'm not sure what is.

[QUOTE=rainmaker;16848985]Some of you didn’t look at the photos...[/QUOTE]

You're right! I didn't look closely and see that they all went off the board onto the card. My bad....

[QUOTE=cardsin47;16848993]They [B]are[/B] on card autographs/ desirability is up to the buyer / collector..... mostly chiming in to answer your initial question.
[B]Look how they signed the inserted material, and their signatures went outside the box, literally “on the card “ [/B]

In fact, they are so much “on card”, I’m surprised there’s not universal agreement :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


This.....as someone else said, some of you don't even look at the pictures. Yes they are on-card. I personally like the look as it makes the auto stand out but it does depend on the display of the card it self.

those yes...

autos like this, no

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2jcaxVQ][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50009459238_c8af99da55_c.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2jcaxVQ]newcards1 1 copy 5[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/76567484@N05/]gowiz[/url], on Flickr

Yes, I do take them as on card autos. These cards have great design and the different materials used for autos really made them stand out.

I personally do not but would prefer a card like that over a sticker.

[QUOTE=funkgut;16848974]I would say no, only because the signer never touches the card. They are given a blank sheet of stickers, squares, etc. They just sign them and send them in without any idea of what the card ends up looking like.

Just my 2 cents....[/QUOTE]

In the OP case though, the blank sheets were likely inserted into the cards [u]before[/u] sending them to the players for signing, as evidenced by the ink spilling outside the signing window, so the players likely touched the cards.

If a player holds the card to sign it I consider it on card.