We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Removal of Personalisation affect value?
Attached is the photo! Thanks!
Tags: Bill, Clinton, Personalisation, Removed
- Attachments: No photo uploads here
-
-
2016_10_1_0_53_42_21_AM.png, 1.7 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Hello.
I expect you will hear many variations of "answers" - each correct for the person giving it. Many don't like dedications. For me, this is a matter of condition and alteration, it would not ever be something I could accept no matter the signer. Like certain little advertising stickers - I don't like them. We were talking collecting cars or paintings I wonder if stickers would be so accepted. I have never seen a stickered Ansel Adams... I suppose a note written by Winslow Homer where he scratched out the name of someone is something like another example, or is it? After all Homer did the removal/scratching in that instance. Dedication removal is seen often with certain signers like Frank Oz, to use an obvious example. I still want the dedication - more is simply more. Who knows how it was removed? Who can be assured of stability? When you sell a Frank Oz is all you hear "well, the removal is funky looking..."?
Eric
Edit to add: I can't see it, it could be that it now reads oddly, "thanks", and the placement may be thrown off or unbalanced. I would think it is worth less than an unmolested example, especially one with no dedication to begin with. I love inscriptions and dedications - they can give context, life...more handwriting...
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Lee on
-
Hello Eric!
Thanks for your honestly appraisal, appreciate it! Cheers!
Yours Sincerely,
Andrew Lee
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
The value of the piece still comes down to the condition of the photo and the clarity of the signature. The LOA does give confidence in the authenticity when it comes time to sell it. TPA stickers have become to be a part of the hobby. It's good that the LOA mentions the inscription removal. I personally would not remove an inscription from a photo as it changes the history of the piece but as long as the removal does not distract from the look it does not hurt the resell value.
If you are a Bill Clinton fan and like the piece, it's worth the price you paid.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on
-
I used to collect historical autographs almost exclusively back in the 70s and you never (at least I never came across) inscription removal back then. None of my friends even thought anything about it. It is often much easier to authenticate with more writing. I personally hate removals and only buy if it is a very rare autograph I need. I agree with Eric about inscriptions and the long term effects of removal. I do not follow prices of modern Presidents but think that is probably in line with his. So as long as you like it that is what is important.
-
-
In X years...who can say?
"I'd like that Frank Oz SP there, the one without that funny yellow/orange spot near the signature."
"That one? That is highly unusual and will cost you. If you are gonna spend like that, just go ahead and buy one with a full inscription..."
Eric
-
Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on
-
The inscription removal phenomena really began to boom with the sharpie signatures obtained on glossy lab produced photos. Autograph dealers and their "runners" know damn well that an uninscribed signed photo will bring far more money on the secondary market than anything being sold to Pete, that happens to be made out to Paul.
When the perfect storm hits, the right photo, the right signature implement, and the correct process is used to remove an inscription.....you will never even know it was there.
But if the signing pen is just the slightest bit too sharp, or the photo is resting on something soft like a table cloth or cardboard backer.....the removal will result in impressions in the photo or scratches from the pen tip in the gloss.
If done properly, on the right item, I don't have any issue with removals. I also believe wholeheartedly, that if you are selling an autograph where a removal has taken place, it should be disclosed.
Just as one example I will mention Peter Cushing, one of the most sought after Star Wars autographs in uninscribed form. Peter signed everything for everyone for decades, and about 90+% of the signatures on photographs are inscribed. This includes Hammer Horror shots, Sherlock shots, Dr. Who shots, and most notably Star Wars shots. Be it 5x8 or 8x10 photos, when it comes to Star Wars images signed by Peter, I have seen hundreds. Of those... far less than 10% are uninscribed, with nearly all of those uninscribed pieces signed as he was suffering from the illness that took his life.
Inscribed pieces sell for hundreds, uninscribed and (even signed with just his initials) tend to sell for 10-20 times as much.
I can certainly live with an inscription if it is signed by someone that you can't under any circumstance replace with an uninscribed signature. I can't settle for an inscribed item if there are other pieces to obtain.
-
Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on
-
As long as its done right I don't believe it affects value. You cant really see anything on this pic and everybody knows Mr. Oz always personalizes. He must find it peculiar there is so many Toms (short names are easiest)!
-
-
Hi Pete,
Well, it is what it is, and I think it's got to be some form of alteration. To the OP's example, if present enough to be noted on a JSA cert, it must be fairly noticeable. It is therefore not totally unreasonable to think a like piece, without this problem, would bring a bit more at sale. You agree it can show if done improperly, and you say "I also believe wholeheartedly, that if you are selling an autograph where a removal has taken place, it should be disclosed." - we are in full agreement.
I can't speak with any knowledge to the future color stability of lab photographs with removals accomplished with chemicals of unknown composition. As someone said, this is a fairly new phenomenon, who knows the effects of who-knows-what was used? I have read of Goo-Be Gone being used, gin, alcohol 70% and 90%. We know from acrylic paints accelerated testing can be useless. There must be some unknown.
Eric
-
-
There has to be something horrible going on there for JSA to notice it.....seeing as they turn a blind eye to reprints and mass printed magazine pages etc.
There are plenty of ways to remove sharpie ink off of nearly any solid glossy surface, including photographs. The least harmful that I have encountered are a standard soft white eraser like Pentel's Clic Eraser and any standard dry erase marker usually used for white boards.
Alcohol, Nail Polish Remover, Goof Off, Goo Be Gone, and even paint thinner....you are absolutely right, there is no telling what those substances will do to a photograph, especially if the person removing the offending words lets them soak for a bit.
The belief that these solvents can help "clean up" posters or computer generated images, or lithograph type prints......have certainly ruined plenty of signed pieces in the last decade or so.
Certain celebrities like Frank Oz, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and lately Tatiana Maslany all seem to inscribe everything.....so if you are looking to purchase any of them, expect to buy something inscribed ....or be sure to insist upon a return privilege after inspection.
I don't see the practice as right or wrong.....it's all up to the individual, but everyone should be aware of the fact that it does happen.
-
-
"There has to be something horrible going on there for JSA to notice it.....seeing as they turn a blind eye to reprints and mass printed magazine pages etc.
There are plenty of ways to remove sharpie ink off of nearly any solid glossy surface, including photographs. The least harmful that I have encountered are a standard soft white eraser like Pentel's Clic Eraser and any standard dry erase marker usually used for white boards."
Yes, and yes, certainly. To me it is alteration, and I cant get around that - for me. We know many/most folks don't appear to do their homework, so one can only hope most inscriptions are removed in the ways you describe and not with some strange chemical.
I feel this way with all my collections - wood -(R.M.S. Mauretania) must be uncleaned and with dust and grime from 1907-1935, brass must be unpolished...etc. Unmolested material is decreasing in quantity.
Eric
-
-
Hi Pete,
Thanks for discussing the subject! :)
Eric
-
-
This is exactly why I joined this site, sharing information and hearing the opinions of others. It is back and forths like this that make all of us better collectors.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
