We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
When your autograph was signed. Does it make a difference to you?
I have no desire in post Beatles autographs. Any modern Mccartney or Ringo (with just the * instead of his full name).
If I am going to buy, I am going to buy a 1962-1965 autograph. If I had the money, I'd collect each year up to 1970 (I know post 1965 stuff is much harder to come by).
I feel like an autograph captures a certain moment in time and I'd much rather picture a 24 year old Beatle standing over my piece than a much older 2016 one (not to invoke ageism). Even the signature itself I associate with a different period. Example John's early 1964 "J" is a much more fun loving mop top beatles "J" than say a 1975 "J" where he is jaded, sick of it all, and ready to be a family man. Just look at it.
Am I crazy? Or does anyone else agree?
So far I have a Lennon from Oct 64, hope to eventually complete my collection with a Beatles era only set of the rest of the guys.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on
-
The money would be in the pepper lp and thats what id want. Your talking tens of thousands for the lp or a photo that could be worth 5 to 12.
-
Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on
-
Hi Paul, are you sure the LP would be tens of thousands? Seems a lot for something signed by the individual Beatles, post 1970 and and over many decades. Even ten thousand doesn't sound like a bargain. Are there precedents?
-
Permalink Reply by James Stone on
-
The only reason I'd take the Pepper album over the scrap of paper is for financial reasons.
If it was something that was given to me, that I couldn't sell, I'd take the piece of paper. Why? It just doesn't matter to me what autographs are on usually. I look at them as capturing a moment in time. As long as they inked it, I don't really care. I would certainly never be the type ot pay big bucks for a Beatles signed album. Not that important. But thats just my preference.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on
-
That Pepper was signed by John...Paul...and George in 1967...Ringo signed the LP in 1997...
It sold at auction for $96,960...Not Bad. What about the"White Album" that was signed by The Beatles in 1973-74 and sold by TRACKS for $186,000 US? The thing is...if it's a one off item from The Beatles...it's gonna sell!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Hi,
Yes, I agree. Each and every autograph in my collection is from the year or time I want to "preserve" in the...amber of my albums. Examples can be seen in "My Page".
I have a "one per artist rule" but that does not apply to David Bowie for the reasons you stated - when it was signed. His signature varied so much. I was careful to collect a 1976 example from the time of The Man Who Fell to Earth (my personal favorite work of his as actor and an early clean "Bo-°" example with "hard" "'76" date), a 1980 Elephant Man signed b/w promo photo (as Actor with strong "Bo-°" sig and dedication with inscription), a 1995 Chertavian Gallery program signed - his first solo art show (as Artist and with new "monogram looped" signature", one of perhaps 250, signed without the fugitive red pen used on almost all), and a 2010 dated copy of "A Reality Tour" (as master singer and with the last variant of his signature in silver metallic), his last live album - a triple gatefold CD with discs and booklet.
-
Permalink Reply by fab432 on
-
An interesting question and interesting answers. The nebulous world of autogrsph collecting. For me I started with any Beatles autograph I could get. Mostly autograph book pages, promo cards and photographs. That was fun until I learned the hard way that most of my autographs were fake. I guess I didn't mind those signed by Neil but the rip off forgeries really pi**ed me off. Then I decided signed records were the way to go and I only collected those for awhile and bought from reputable sources. So for me I only really would want full band signed items or items signed by one for all. And I actually prefer early early signed items and late late signed itens.
-
Permalink Reply by Beatlesfan64 on
-
I agree to an extent. But the great Ben M. story of waiting for Lennon in Aug '80 makes me realize it doesn't matter when. Would have been nice to get Lennon's autograph back in 64, no question. But an autograph is an autograph. The person still took time to sign their name. And let's face it: the price of the earlier prime time autographs of the Beatles are just too high and frankly not in reach of most collectors. I have not-so terrific Paul McCartney autograph that has been described as "yuck" on a Beatles forum. Maybe, but it's real. It was still signed by the same bass player who appeared on that Feb 1964 Ed Sullivan Show. That's what matters to me and I hope I'm not alone in that regard.
-
-
That is true an autograph is an autograph, although I am really not sure there is that much difference in price between a 2016 Paul Mccartney and once from 1963. Maybe a slight difference, but the price is pretty similar, same with most of them.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on
-
Maybe sort of true, but his older graphs are more full and longer while many of his recent graphs are abbreviated.
It also depends on what it is signed on, something connected to The Beatles are more sought after...There are many things that can cause a signature to be more sought after and it is upto the individual collector to determine what means most to themselves.
I personally would rather have a 1963 signature over a modern one because I like the history.
-
-
I do not think you could possibly say that the date of an autograph is irrelevant, at least for the vast majority of signers with a value of $100 or more.
Just look at the price difference between the autograph of a silent movie star signed in the 1920s and one signed "in later years". Admittedly this may also have something to do with what has been signed (great pearl finish double weight original vintage photo vs. cheap flimsy glossy repro) but that is certainly not the only reason.
As I said in my earlier post, I would much rather have a Bowie signed in 1972 than one signed in 2000. For Lennon it is exactly the opposite. I would much rather have one signed in 1980 than one signed in 1963. In both cases this is based largely on rarity but in the case of Bowie it also has a lot to do with the artistic quality of work he was producing at the time.
I think my preferences are reflective of the market. I have seen early Bowie signatures topping the $1,000 mark. Anything post 1979 would struggle to make $500 I would think, unless the signed item is something special. For Lennon I cannot see a signed album page from 1963 topping $1,000 whereas a signature from 1980 (or the late 70s) would make a lot more, maybe twice as much.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
