Thought Experiment: Arita Autograph on a Pika Trophy

Guys I was searching through PWCC Fixed Price Offers and saw of course one of the beautiful 1998 Pika Trophies and I was thinking: Would an Arita Autograph lower the value somehow due to pure amount of signings he did in the past and will do in future?

1 Like

The items are already a few of the most expensive cards in the hobby. I don’t think getting it autographed would make it worth more. If anything I think it would hurt it.

1 Like

My personal opinion is that it will raise the value for that one person who adores the artist and possibly a huge fan of everything the artist does, but for everyone else, knowing how rare the card is, it will probably just de-value it.



I’m not a fan of autographs on expensive/rare items. I’d rather have an item of that caliber that hasn’t been altered.


I know I’m probably beating a dead horse here after the Arita thread but for me, the only way I’d be interested in an autographed card is if I had it done myself (or someone had it singed for me). I’d love to be able to meet these artists and chit chat for a minute or two while they were signing my cards. But otherwise, it’s basically one or the other for me.

In the situation you brought up with a high-end trophy card, I’d rather not have it signed and I think most serious collectors wouldn’t either.

1 Like

I think having it signed would appeal more to cross collectors than it would to people who only collect Pokemon, where most of us probably aren’t sure what we’d prefer, because it’s not really an option we would have considered.

It’s not hard to imagine one or two big whales placing a big premium on it.

Pokemon artist signatures are completely different than a sports auto

1 Like

Slab-ception … what if you got the card graded, the slab signed, and then that slab… slabbed :wink:

Disclaimer: I personally find signed cards to be undesirable. I place no additional value on signatures, and I will probably never buy a signed card. However, I understand why others enjoy them and value them.

Getting a set card signed is one thing. There is always another copy. Collectors might enjoy getting some of their (replaceable) set cards signed to feel a connection to the artist. Speculators or investors might seek signatures as a way of generating artificial rarity. I don’t value any of this but I at least see where these people are coming from.

I have a much harder time understanding how a signature does anything for an irreplaceable trophy-tier card. Trophy cards are like precious artifacts. Each tells its own story. The original Pika trophies are icons from the birth of the competitive TCG. They are about celebrating that competition, the tournament, and the victory. Their purpose for existing is for that occasion. The artist that illustrated the card seems like a small footnote compared to the much bigger story that the card tells on its own. To me, an artist’s signature on such a card would completely get in the way, and would be a net negative.

This is all obviously just my opinIon. The market can certainly disagree.


I thought about getting a 97 pika signed at the first arota signing years ago. Good thing I didn’t.


so is pokemon immature because autos aren’t the same as sports? people care even less about autos in mtg is that immature too?

This idea wins tbh

1 Like

I don’t think this has much to do with Pokemon’s maturity. The dynamics are different. In sports you are getting the auto of the person on the card. In Pokemon, you are not getting Pikachu to sign your card, you’re getting the illustrator. It’s the equivalent of getting the person who took the photo of the sportsplayer to sign the card.

In sports, the player is the “GOAT” so their signature is also GOATed. In Pokemon, the no. 1,2,3 trainers are not GOATed because of Arita. It’s because the culture of the hobby is to appreciate rarity and also cards awarded as trophies.

I wouldn’t want Arita to sign a trophy or Nishida to sign an illustrator or an Art Academy winner to sign their copies or Arita to sign a mint 1st ed Charizord for that matter. These cards are what they are for reasons outside of who illustrated them.


Nishida created pikachu though, not arita

Read it again :slight_smile:

As a side note, I think Nishida is a reasonable exception because of her association with Pikachu and how impossible she is to get to sign things

1 Like

Oh, I missed your comment. I thought he was saying that arita was both the artist and creator of pikachu. I also now realize we are talking about the illustrator and not 97 pika lol

I think the exception would be infrequent signers. Sugimori signed anything is valuable. So a signed Unikarp would be cool. But the real core with autographs, just like with cards is rarity. Even though Arita is a legend, his auto is the least valuable because it’s the most common.



So, I would kill for an Arita sig… Hence, you won’t see me at any events in the near future - I like not being in prison. BUT to answer the thought experiment…

I honestly, would not WANT this card if it were signed. Here’s why, and I’ll go further than that, afterward:

  • IFF it’s this rare, then I can’t get another without the signature.
  • IF it’s signed, the item is being changed in a way that it increases the rarity of similar, already rare items.
  • Further, a lot of the added value is derived from the fact that I Myself chose to have it signed.

Thus this value is not only unique to me, but since it is so rare, my having it signed also limits it’s value for everyone else, (because no one else can have one that isn’t signed.) I know there is more than 1, but I’m just arguing to the extreme on very rare items.

IMHO, I’d go so far as to say that like defacing art that you own, or crashing your super rare supercar, signing an item such as this, not only likely de-values it, but also spites most everyone else in the hobby.


I feel like autographs belong on insignificant cards - the auto should be the focus. Drawing on/inking a valuable/scarce card is a sin in my eyes!