This REALLY disturbs me....What are your thoughts?

Maybe this has been happening for a long time, but I've just recently noticed it. People are having celebrities sign a blank sheet of photo paper, then they take this signed photo paper and print a picture on it. They are then selling the photos as signed. However, I think this destroys the integrity of the autograph as the picture is printed OVER the autograph. Here's some pics:

I, for one, would feel cheated if I knew the image had been printed over the autograph.

BTW, those I've spoken to say they've had these authenticated by PSA/DNA after the picture has been printed over the signature.

What are your thoughts?

0 members like this

< Previous Post

Comment

You need to be a member of Autograph Magazine Live! to add comments!

Join Autograph Magazine Live!

Comment by Stephen Duncan on January 7, 2010 at 6:59pm: On the same subject, how about these people who get a pick guard signed then attach it to a guitar and "claim" they have a signed guitar? Your seeing that more and more now. To me, thats no signed guitar........

Comment by Eric Fields on January 5, 2010 at 2:41pm: Brandon... that makes sense. I guess it would be the same if they authenticated a shellaked (sp?) baseball, or a laminated photo. Determining if the signature is authentic - that's what they are there to do. I still don't like the practice though. I'd hope the sellers would describe these properly when selling them. I'd think (I've never seen a finished one in-person) that it would be difficult to tell these from pre-printed photos. Maybe not. Anyway, it was an interesting eye opener for me to see this being done.

Comment by Brandon Mysinger on January 5, 2010 at 11:15am: As authenticators, our job is to determine if the signature is real..That's it. PSA/DNA did the right thing by authenticating the signatures that they deemed authentic. Nothing else matters but the signature....Now, were someone to grade it, that would be a different thing.

It does place a lot of responsibility on the seller though to make sure that it is described properly

Comment by Stephen Duncan on January 5, 2010 at 9:14am: http://www.rockandrollcollection.com/catalog/index.php?act=viewProd...
Sometimes a signed index card is the way to go. You can do so much with them.........

As far as my Colin Powell "signed" book, I am not a historical autograph guy, but it was there, he was VERY popular at the time, and I figured where can I ever get him anyways. So, I purchased it.

Comment by michael bartow on January 5, 2010 at 9:10am: Bill O'reilly did the same thing with one of his books my mother wanted. From what it look liked to me it was a Post it note size sticker that he signed. I agree she could have gone to a signing in NJ but decided it wouldn't be worth it.

Comment by Stephen Duncan on January 5, 2010 at 8:44am: http://www.rockandrollcollection.com/catalog/index.php?act=viewProd...
Agreed Josh, idex cards are EXCELLANT items to get signed. Without index cards, I would have had lost over 200 signatures.

Comment by Stephen Duncan on January 5, 2010 at 8:09am: It is autographed on a sticker that looks like it was from a giant roll of stickers, then pealed off. :-(

Comment by Steve Cyrkin on January 5, 2010 at 8:01am: Steve,

Is it a bookplate (does it look like it's made for a book?) or just a sticker? If it's a bookplate, it's still a signed book, but you'd need to note it's on a bookplate. That's nowhere near as desirable as one signed directly on the title page.

Comment by Stephen Duncan on January 5, 2010 at 7:46am: While at the Nixon library in Yorba Linda a few years back, they were selling Colin Powell's autobiography that was "signed", .....or was it? The signature was actually on an oversized sticker, then stuck to one of the opening pages. I bought the book (it is his signature), but it's still in my opinion not quite a signed book. Am I right or wrong???????

Comment by Steve Cyrkin on January 4, 2010 at 9:17pm: I asked PSA/DNA and they said that yes, they've authenticated some of these (they haven't received many), just like they would authenticate an autograph that has been lacquered or taped over as long as it's real. I didn't have a chance to ask, but I'm sure it has to be clearly visible.

This brings up an important point: authentication is only part of the process. As long as they believe the autograph is genuine and unaltered, they'll authenticate it as genuine. It's up to the buyer and seller to determine the condition and note any problems, unless you also ask for PSA/DNA to grade it.

I'm sure some people will bitch about this, but it makes sense. I used to be a coin guy, and a coin can be the worst piece of dung out there, but if it's real, it's real. The assessment of quality is a different process altogether.