We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Photographic proof when obtaining autographs: A necessity or a superfluity?
After recently getting some in person signatures, it had me wondering if photo proof is becoming more needed than wanted when acquiring autographs. I usually take video/photos when I obtain signatures when I am able to, but sometimes circumstances such as crowds, security, and not having a free hand prevent me from taking photographic proof/video of an item being signed.
For example, recently I obtained signatures of some soccer athletes during a meet and greet. Some items I could photograph while they were being signed, while others I couldn't due to not having a free hand (item in one hand, marker in the other- line of eagerly waiting fans behind).
For some of the more widely collected autographs (such as Jeter, Paul McCartney, etc) photo proof can sometimes be obsolete since the signatures are generally more known and studied among collectors. However, for signatures of celebrities/athletes that aren't frequently studied or rare, or the signatures of popular celebrities that are too sloppy to opine (we can all agree on this one- Al Pacino), photo proof may be a requirement rather than a fortuity that gives reassurance to anyone questioning the legitimacy of an autograph.
Even so, some collectors are weary of photo proof given the editing technology that exists. In the past, Mr. Cyrkin extensively covered photo-editing allegedly done by an entertainment-based autograph company http://live.autographmagazine.com/video/inside-edition-report-on-1 .
So, the big questions of this discussion:
When obtaining autographs, do you make it a point to record or photograph your piece getting signed?
When buying autographs, do you believe photographic proof is a necessity or just an added confidence booster? If provided, are you ever skeptical that the photograph may be edited to deceive the customer?
I look forward to the discussion!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike P on
-
I am trying to get into in-person autograph collecting on a more regular basis, so I hope anyone with experience in obtaining autographs could offer some input on this discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Gregory on
-
I go by the signature alone when buying but having video or proof photos can only help. I get annoyed when sellers say they have proof photos but then it shows a different photo being signed to the one being sold.
When getting photos signed it's nice to get proof but not usually possible. I was at the Hobbit premiere in Wellington and got about 50 signatures, some several times on many items. Due to the crowd and security it was impossible to try to pass photos etc and use a camera as well. When doing smaller groups a photo is nice and only helps add to the authenticity.
Sadly with Photoshop now even photo proof can be a debatable subject. Several forgers find an image of someone at a signing or Comic Con etc and super impose their photo over the actual photo or get the same image and claim it's the one being sold.
-
-
Interesting points Dan. When I acquire signatures in person, I try to get as much proof as possible since I'm not into submitting items signed in person to 3rd party authenticators- makes no sense to me.
It can be a nuisance though, as holding a phone in one hand and item and pen in the other can always backfire and mess up a signing opportunity. Guess it all takes practice.
-
Permalink Reply by Rich on
-
It might be deemed a necessity if the signature in question is so bad that it can't be authenticated. I don't really recommend that collectors purchase those signatures anyway though.
-
-
That is true as well. Signatures like Al Pacino's sig would best to have physical proof based on what you mentioned. Just to play it safe I'll try to record as much as possible. It leaves the customers more confident in the signature and is probably better than photo proof since pictures can always be doctored.
-
Permalink Reply by Rock G III on
-
Keep in mind while a photo is nice honestly it can be altered easily. I seen this one guy for years on ebay use photo proof. And the signed items where on the table as you see the person signing. Well until they got busted photoshopping items into the picture. Their items where forgeries and got photoshoped into the pictures in every auction and it was really hard to tell.
-
-
Well, there is consistently good photographic proof, and then questionable/worthless "photo proof." Good Ebay sellers like buffylover, thefriendlystranger and joedci78 (not sure about the spelling on all of those), tend to get solid is not near perfect photo proof quite frquently.
Some of the photoshopping that fooled people in the past is quite humorous in retrospect. We live i an era where high-definition video and high resolution photos are the norm, yet some of these photo proof pics (i.e. the questionable ones) are amusingly grainy. I always thought the American Royal Arts ones were pretty crappy looking.
-
-
I agree. I tend to stay away from any item that was claimed to have been recently signed with grainy photo proof; especially when I am on the wall about the signature's authenticity.
-
-
I can assure you that if I had the link you could not tell. The only reason the guy was busted was one of his pictures was shot by someone else (stolen picture) and the original surfaced and it was clear. As with high definition pictures photoshop has also taken huge steps forward in covering up photoshoped jobs. So while its nice its completely crazy to go strictly by pictures.
-
Permalink Reply by Jason on
-
Thanks Rich. I am buffylover29 on ebay, I try to get the best proof that I can but sometimes it is just way too hard to get exact proof on my items. Collectors don't realize that there are various circumstances that are discussed by Mike P. Security sometimes hits cameras if you are trying to take proof photos, big crowds it is hard to take proof shots and sometime the celebrity themselves tell us that they wont sign if we take photos of them. I usually try to sneak a few shots in there but sometimes its impossible. Like for instance, right now is the Toronto Film Festival. In crowds of 500 people it is hard to get exact proof on anything. so those are the times where I will take some shots of them signing as proof that I was there to get the item signed.
I get messages all the time on ebay "why don't you have exact proof for all of your auctions". I try to explain these things to them, but most have never met a celebrity in real life and don't get what happens.
Anyways, I think that photo proof is about the best you can get as far as proof goes. If anyone wants to check put my eBay store here is the link http://stores.ebay.com/buffylover29
Send me a offer if you want anything or just send me a message on here if you just want to chat.
Jason
-
Permalink Reply by PICTURE PROOF AUTOGRAPHS on
-
Yes, If you check my page or albums, you will see that I only collect "In Person Picture Proof Autographs". I personal think that is now the only way to collect autographs due to all the money, forgeries, and scam artists that this industry has attracted.
You are right about dealers that sell their autographs saying that they have been picture proof, when all they did was photo shopped it. That is why I alway try to use a 35 mm cameria, when I develope the pictures, I tape the negitive to the picture. So when I sell, you will get the item, the autograph, the picture, and the negitive.
If there is an autograph session that states that you can not take pictures, then I do not go. To me, the autograph is use less then.
One reason is I have received a lot of autographs from on a pit road chase at auto races where the autograph looks like a scribble and even though I love this web site, there are to many amateurs here that think they are so called authenticators that are more than willing to put in their negitive two cents to tear apart your autograph if you didn't have a photo for proof.
So again, Yes, I will advise you, and everyone, If you collect "In Person Autographs". Take a picture of the person signing the item for a "Picture Proof Autograph"!!!!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Mike White on
-
Photo proof of a signing means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Photoshop/image manipulation aside, unless it's a rare item, there's absolutely nothing to stop someone from forging the signature on an identical picture/item and sending it out with the same photo as "proof".
Same goes for mass producing copies of their autographs on flats and selling them as authentic with that photo as proof.
Even if we look past image manipulation, I'm yet to see any example of photo/video "proof" that actually conclusively proves anything other than that someone got an identical item signed by that celebrity. I'm yet to see one that actually proves that it was the item in question. And I've seen A LOT of them.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
