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

Autographs being reinked and restored

Some time ago I seen a beatles set that had been restored By a professional,they touched up the boys signatures around about 15 percent of the signatures were reworked.

Does anyone have any idea if this is a good idea to have signatures restored and would anyone have any pictures of reworked autographs.

Does it effect the value of the sets or signatures?

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul on March 1, 2015 at 5:45pm

If my white album is a cut I'll be very upset to say the least.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on March 1, 2015 at 5:48pm

I am familiar with comic book restoration, and they can do miracles with that. I have seen my fair share of it in hand, and it always looks better in a scan than in hand. Scans hide edges, seams and subtle color shifts that are relatively easy to see in hand.

And comic book restoration is expensive. You could easily rack up $1,000 in charges for moderate work. This is why it's so surprising to me that the autograph paper mechanics work cheap. Thanks for all the info.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on March 1, 2015 at 5:54pm

It's one thing to get a restoration but another to get a album pieced together which is fraudulent to sell something knowingly.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on March 1, 2015 at 5:57pm

Agreed. But the same high level concept applies to both. Paper mechanics alter an item -- whether it's repairing flaws or adding signatures from other items -- to increase value. The ethical key is the work being disclosed?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on March 1, 2015 at 6:01pm

Agree Steve.
Restoration for preservation. If your a buyer you would want it disclosed.
It sounds like Anthony could blow the top of this.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on March 2, 2015 at 9:13am

Having been in the museum field for over 30 years I know that in conferences, and forums I have attended often people from restoration services would be on hand. Talking in general to a couple of those it was my understanding that any legitimate firm keeps meticulous records of each restoration. They will take pictures of before, during and after restoration. Any chemical, solvent, glue, varnish, paint or ink used is noted by the full name and where applied. This is done to protect the restorer and to aid in any future restorations. Technically restorers are not supposed to do anything that cannot be undone. I have never been involved in having anything restored since I am the opinion that it is better to maintain the object as it exists. Also restorations of paintings I know usually is in the hundreds and even thousands. I was very surprised how cheap these albums can be made. It is my personal belief in the case of re-inking and moving, removing signatures to create something different must be fully disclosed if the item is sold. Not to disclose I personally would consider it fraud. I personally would not want anything re-inked or moved autograph in my collection.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on March 2, 2015 at 10:11am

It is my personal belief in the case of re-inking and moving, removing signatures to create something different must be fully disclosed if the item is sold. Not to disclose I personally would consider it fraud. I personally would not want anything re-inked or moved autograph in my collection.

I whole-heartedly agree.

Further, in my opinion, "re-inking" by an artist with a horsehair is no better than a kitchen table forger clumsily tracing over faded signatures with a Bic. The only difference is one appears better. In both cases someone other than the original signer is deceptively applying ink over a faded signature.

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on March 1, 2015 at 6:00pm

The one thing that I'm really surprised about is the amount of time taken, in one way there is care put behind it...Still It kills the entire history behind the signature. Where it was signed, when it was signed, it kills the story. Is it a forgery of sorts? I kind of think so, it is fraudulent for sure if the buyer doesn't know.

I guess I could understand why someone would want this done, i'd love to have a George signature on a White Album, but I'd want it to be real and this all seems so phony to me.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on March 1, 2015 at 6:03pm

Because it is "manufactured."

While Harrison did apply that ink, he never actually held that album in his hands.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on March 1, 2015 at 6:06pm

Yep, and that is what makes it worthless to me I think.

Permalink Reply by Paul on March 1, 2015 at 6:08pm

I wonder about the last 2 fully signed white albums that have surfaced recently. Makes you wonder. 300.000 thousand dollars if there been manufactured.

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on March 2, 2015 at 11:59am

I also agree with you that so much integrity of the autograph is lost when it is removed from the original source. As for re-inking it obscures rather than enhances in my book. I still maintain if a collector must have a "perfect" looking autograph. They should have it professionally photo-shopped and frame it with the untouched original. In my view it would make for a far more interesting display. I believe collectors need to respect the autograph as a piece of history and treat it as such. I suspect that a majority of people having this done are not true collectors but looking to sell as quick as they get it back from the restorer.