We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

Russell Crowe autograph

In March last year I bought an autographed Russell Crowe photo from Autographs 21. I paid $65. Even though I was a rookie autograph collector I thought the price was pretty low for Crowe. (Still today I'm still trying to educate myself on the hobby.)

Anyway, the photo has been kept in a sturdy plastic holder/sleeve in a storage box since I received it. When I looked at it recently I noticed that the last few letters of the signature seem to be deteriorating. Upon further exam, it seems like the photo isn't an actual "developed" photo; rather, more likely/possibly printed on a home printer? Appears the photo has been laid across the top of the paper for lack of a better description.

I attached 2 photos of the front and 1 of the back which shows the type of photo paper used.

Any comments, insight?

Thank you.

P.S. I also bought a John Cleese autograph from the same seller so now I'm concerned about it.

Tags: Autographs 21, Crowe, Russell

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on January 22, 2017 at 1:03pm

The piece started life as a photographic blank white home printer page. The autograph collector had Russell sign that page, and then the paper was run thru the printer and the color was sprayed on to make the image appear. When this is done it causes the ink to bleed out and it gets worse over time.

The bleeding of the last letters is unfortunately just the beginning, it will continue through the rest of the autograph over time.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on January 22, 2017 at 1:36pm

Ahh Pete. I wish you could of backed me and a few others up with the big argument on FB a few weeks ago. A blanks seller and some of his backers( other blank sellers I'm sure) were swearing theres nothing wrong with selling these to unsuspecting collectors. I think it should always be disclosed because many of these will be garbage after so many years. I would urge people to always ask and if they started as blanks I would not buy!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on January 22, 2017 at 2:14pm

I agree this absolutely should be disclosed the same as any "restoration" should be disclosed. I am not on Face Book would have gladly backed you up too.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on January 22, 2017 at 2:59pm

Bit of a debate in the RACC community about this a few weeks back. Of course some "white sheet" sellers were super defensive about it (why is it so many IP collectors think they have some sort of inherent moral high ground?) I think they should be disclosed. So many of these collectors go for the cheap buck (Pick guards, blank photos, drum heads, etc).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JL Hutchison on January 22, 2017 at 3:34pm

The sellers are wrong. They should not sell such items without disclosing these facts.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JL Hutchison on January 22, 2017 at 3:30pm

Thanks all for the replies.

Guess I need to stick with a limited number of sellers that are known as reputable.

Even if Crowe really did sign the paper it's worth nothing to me if it deteriorates. Very disheartening.

A waste of money.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 22, 2017 at 7:57pm

No return policy? It's not a lab photo and I feared you paid for one. There's a seller on Ebay right now with a "color photo" priced well in excess of what a like pro lab photo would be worth - over 1K. Only when you search and find the thing where it started life pre-sticker do you see an accurate description of what it really is - a grainy low res thin pc print you can likely see through. Current ellers return is for authenticity only. I try to talk about quality and what makes it as much as I can. And ask - "is this a lab photo?" I've seen folks buy without asking that, or size, or condition...

Information on photographs for autograph collectors

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 22, 2017 at 8:21pm

PS - Limited help, but pc prints often have odd uneven margins, sometimes on 2 sides, they do not have the normal full gloss and often present a speckled or other appearance which can see seen across a screen with a good scan and eyes. Also they will likely be over-contrasted because they are copy prints. They make look great, but will fail side by side with a fine lab photo.