Hey Guys:

Just saw this end on eBay. Seemed like a nice item but I was curious what the board thinks of a piece like this with or without the inscription. Would it actually be worth a little more if someone cut off the stained areas and the "To Janet" prior to encapsulating it?

Tracks has a bunch of items such as this that could probably be cleaned up with the stains cut off and/or inscription cut off without showing a severe alteration. Curious what everyone has to say on the topic. Thanks for your time!

Regards,

DK

Views: 316

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If the piece is shaped exactly like that...you don't cut the name off. The shape would be off, and...nobody minds a simple inscription. Don't get me wrong, people would prefer it without, but...not if it's all cut up to hide the name.

Are you sure these are authentic?

Hi Josh:

Thanks for the reply. Allegedly these have a Caiazzo LOA, Tracks LOA and also passed a Beckett quick opinion. They look alright to me but I am not an expert.

Regards,

DK

For a high-ticket item like that, I'd rather have the inscription if it helps with validation.

Ok, these are not from sept. 63. Does anyone agree? These are authentic but look from late 64 early 65. The fact that Perry and Frank write them off as sept 63 just to go along with the letter is worrying. No way these are from 9-63. Right, maybe I’m nuts but I’ve been following autos for 25 years…

I agree, they look like late 64 to 65 style to me

I am totally against efforts to "clean up" this or any similar autograph. It would look ridiculous and suspect if you cut off the inscription. Also, the more handwriting the better since it helps with authentication.

Cutting or trimming, in my opinion, should only be done in extreme cases. You can always just matte out any undesired areas if you are framing something.  The other issue is that clean, unaged edges on a vintage item might look unnatural.

In terms of form I think this is a really nice set from 1965 accepting the always present danger of it being some kind of reproduction. I agree with the other member who questioned if FC would have identified this as a 1963 set when it so obviously isn’t, it does put a big question mark of the paperwork (LOA).

they are definitely not '63, I agree

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2021   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service