This is why I am against "Sticker" Autographs

[ranbethscards]

Searching eBay for 2007 Distinguished Service Autographs and these two (there are a total of three) Stan Musial 2007 DS Autographs came up as "SOLD".

Strange, as Stan Musial IS NOT on the official list of autographs from that set.

As Paul Harvey use to say, "...and now for the rest of the story."

One of the descriptions reads:

This card features a Stan Musial autographed holographic sticker. Before Stan Musial passed away, he signed holographic stickers that could be used to create unique items. This autographed card was obtained directly from the Stan Musial collection and comes with his personal COA & hologram from Stan the Man, Inc

What a shame.

 

[NorthKorea]

Neither really looks like Musial's signature, and the "sticker" doesn't have the same imaging that usually happens with the Topps holofoil. I'm pretty sure that whomever it was that got scammed by those would be easily able to return them under eBay's Buyer Protection.

I'm not sure how fraudulence by sellers is a negative for Topps and other companies using the sticker autos. There are other reasons (such as the actual fact that they use stickers on items that were signed a decade ago), but fraud alone shouldn't be blamed on the companies.

 

[CamaroDMD]

The second one looks like a later in life signature to me...the first is very sloppy and could be real. His signature did deteriorate as he aged. However, I agree that I don't care for sticker autos.

This isn't the only reason, but I really like to know that the signed card was something the athlete actually signed. I can envision someone just signing a sheet of stickers...and then someone applies them to cards...it's just not the same. I vastly prefer on card autos. Yes, it's cool to have a card signed by 4 players...but is the card really signed if it has 4 stickers applied to it. Maybe I'm being picky...but that's how I feel.