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

Star Wars Collectors Unite!

I have been collecting Star Wars autographs since 1998. Not all of my signatures are on Star Wars memorabilia. For example, when I met Warwick Davis at a comic convention in New York City, I had him sign a Willow photograph. I also have publicity photos of Sir Alec Guinness and Christopher Lee from the 1970s, and a Natalie Portman signed The Diary of Anne Frank theater poster from her performance on Broadway back in 1998. My current wish list includes Peter Cushing, Terence Stamp and John Williams. I am interested in knowing about the collections and wish lists of other members.

10 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike T on July 29, 2017 at 11:23am

In recent years he always personalized, but early on he did not. In fact, some of his earliest autographs he simply signed the name of the puppet and later started adding "Frank Oz".

Why would you want something inscribed "To Mike" hanging on Eric's wall, just because it includes more letters? Are autographs personalized to longer names more desirable than shorter names?

Unless you are authenticating autographs, then I do not agree with the premise that more handwriting is always better.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 29, 2017 at 11:28am

I am authenticating.

But beyond that, I appreciate the inscriptions. The context. More is simply more. To remove that which was written by the desired and loved celebrity...

But, to each his own. :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on July 29, 2017 at 12:05pm

I am confident that any authenticator worth paying for, and most that are not worth paying for - would have no problem authenticating that signature without the personalization.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 29, 2017 at 2:25pm

It would be great if they mention the wipe/swipe...after all, why is this done?

We are not talking authentication. We are talking alteration of an original written sentiment from a celebrity to increase or jack sales value/"desirability". That is that.

Not "Restoration".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on July 29, 2017 at 7:27pm

It's done to make the item better haha, not sure what you don't get about that. There is no way to detect the ink was ever there, if I sent it in for authentication they wouldn't be able to tell.

I've been collecting posters for over a decade, this is common practice across the board. Just pretend it was never there if that makes you feel better.

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on July 29, 2017 at 7:36pm

I think we are "splitting hairs" here. Mike, the piece is one of the finest I have seen and is far superior with the inscriptions professionally removed. Kudos to you!

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on July 30, 2017 at 4:27pm

Very nice piece, Mike T. Congratulations.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 30, 2017 at 2:32am

I've been collecting since the 1990's. There is, or was, originality. Context. Meaning. I appreciate it. Alterations remove this. I get that this practice "improves" the $ and eye appeal (to some), but I prefer the originality. I charge a lot more for a signed Bowie with dedication, inscription and date. And who is to guarantee the long term stability of the item? Hate to see a halo in 15 years.

I am truly you love your poster but I am wrapping my head around the removal of your own name written by your stars - and paying for it.

This is not meant to be argument - just discussion my friend :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on July 30, 2017 at 4:17am

The reasoning:

1. It looks better.
2. It's worth more.

If you would rather have an item that looks worse and is worth less then that is certainly your prerogative.