We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Beatles, could a restorer get rid of John's sig??

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 21, 2022 at 1:09pm

Unless the Lennon signature is going to destroy the wole thing physically it belongs where it is and should not be removed. There is a code of ethics with regard to such work. A few new owners and disclosure may well disappear. Then it's bogus. What other motives are there to do this removal? I can think of only one.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 21, 2022 at 1:51pm

How could this be "restored" to original condition? It is already so.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on February 21, 2022 at 3:10pm

Maybe I am being super stupid but I cant think of any ulterior motive for wondering about the removal of the Lennon. I just thought it might have been an opportunity to own 3 genuine Beatles for a reasonable price. . Had I known the Lennon was Neils, as I earlier remarked I would not have posted.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 21, 2022 at 3:15pm

Somone w/o scruples would have this unethically treated to remove the sig almost perfectly and sell it w/o disclosure as a 3 Beatles original.

Would you still have bought it had you known it was Neil?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy on February 21, 2022 at 1:12pm

The question was:

"Could a restorer get rid of John's sig.??"

The answer is "Yes" and there are options available. There is a difference between "Could" & "Should".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 21, 2022 at 1:20pm

A question? Here, on the boards? My God!

The question is using the wrong term to start - "restorer". Others started using incorect terminology, removal was discussed and I added my input as well as definitions of what we are talking about. Some folks don't seem to know what these terms actually mean and so I posted them. These things matter - YMMV.

BTW, You do not dictate to me how I choose to answer or what input I think is appropriate.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 21, 2022 at 1:22pm

The "should" thing was going before I added my input. I simply agreed with Ballroom. And most using the wrong terminology in this post is certainly not going to help Michelle any.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 21, 2022 at 2:18pm

The answer is actually no, as asked. That would not be a job for a restorer. Wrong job for the wrong expert. As noted - removal is a last resort. So unless the Aspinall Lennon is going to burst into flames, there is not reason for any treatment - but to remove the "lennon" for financial gain while throwing away its context. I believe a hardcore collector would want this exactly as is.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on February 21, 2022 at 1:48pm

This is just my personal opinion. I would leave this signed photo "as-is". If Aspinall signed John's signature then there is an official connection and, I believe, lends more credibility to the piece.

I do not see removing the signature would add to the value it already has.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 21, 2022 at 1:55pm

Exactly. That connection would be lost. I'd rather have what was as it was collected than start removing things I don't like. I just buy what I want as I want it - not start doing surgery on things to satisfy me. Was this purchased with the removal in mind?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 21, 2022 at 3:41pm

Here’s a similar one that sold through RR Auction with Aspinall’s Lennon signature removed, and there are still pen impressions from that signature. As you can see, it didn’t do all that well. I think it likely would have done just as well or better with the Aspinall signature intact.

https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/33302560446672-beatle...