We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.
Authenticity is Everything
Could a signed carbon duplicate receipt be a “real” autograph?
If I use the phrase “carbon copy” instead of “carbon duplicate,” it would seem the answer is pretty straight forward...no...because a “copy” is not original. But could a carbon copy receipt, either from an old receipt book or from a credit card transaction, be a real autograph?
My first thought was no. However, after thinking about it some more, I’m not entirely sure. Okay, back in “the old days,” when a person made a purchase using a credit card, he would sign the receipt for his purchase. In between the top copy and another copy would be a carbon paper, so that when the signer pressed on the top copy, the carbon would produce a second version of the top copy. The second version was produced directly from the manual manipulation of the signer. It wasn’t a photocopy. The “ink” on the second version was simply the carbon signature produced directly from the labor of the signer. The original ink from the pen was replaced by “carbon ink” if you will for the second version of the signature.
So my thinking now (as messed up as it may be) is that the act of signing produced two “real” autographs. Although the top copy may be more desired, perhaps the second should still constitute a real signature.
‘It also looks as though the owner of History for Sale believes that a carbon signature is also a real autograph. I had never even really considered any of this until now.
Any thoughts or opinions on this?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
I was thinking much of this last night (lack of crossover and all, "fakeability", etc), but want to add, generally speaking, the warm feeling we all get when we see exact duplicates of our own signatures offered. If the upper item is an original signature, what is underneath must then be some form of copy.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on
-
I find I am again in the distinct minority on AML. I do not in any way consider a carbon copy an actual signature. Personally I think the name "carbon copy" says all that needs saying myself. I guess I take the position that a "carbon copy" no matter how you look at it is still a "copy" in the similar vein of onion skin letter press copies they are still copies. In my book the first generation ink or pencil is the autograph and anything under that are copies. While it is ethical in my opinion to sell carbon copies the term "carbon copy" should always be used. I certainly would not consider the copy as equal in value to the original. If the original and carbon copy were both same BIN price on eBay who on AML would buy the carbon copy over the original?
-
Permalink Reply by just some dude on
-
+1
-
-
+1
-
Permalink Reply by James on
-
In my opinion, the carbon duplicate is a real autograph, particularly when one considers the quote from another collector I posted above. If a celeb were to take a piece of paper and put a piece of carbon on top and then sign onto the carbon, would the carbon signature produced on the paper not in fact be a real autograph? I think it would be. If a signature is produced by the direct manual manipulation of the signer, in my book that’s an autograph. However, I agree that, in the case of a receipt book or cc transaction, the top copy would be more desired and valuable. I don’t think a carbon signature would ever be as valuable as a live ink signature, but both are “autographs” directly produced by the signer.
Steve brings up a great point regarding the possibility of fraud. So if a person were to purchase a carbon autograph, one, it would have to be priced much lower than a live ink signature, and two, the buyer would have to be very confident in the reliability of the seller.
-
-
James we are going to disagree on this lol and no problem with that. I just want you to know that I respect you greatly and am not just trying to be argumentative. I understand what you are saying but I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that for me to be an "original" autograph is when someone takes a pen or pencil puts the point of that to paper to and whatever flows on that paper is the autograph. The pressure point through that paper and on to a piece of carbon paper then going through that onto another piece of paper to me is a copy of the original. As for the astronaut my way of thinking is that there again the actual autograph would be on the carbon paper itself and the pressure point is on the photograph. The fact is the person signing might not ever touch the actual photograph in that scenario. I still think for anyone to sell a carbon copy as a "hand signed" autograph without informing that it is a carbon copy is at the least misleading. I realize you would never do that but there are those that would. I do not mind someone calling it a "Carbon Copy Autograph" or "Carbon Copy Signature" but without the word carbon copy I believe it would be unethical. To me a carbon copy can never be the same as the original. There has to be a way to distinguish a hierarchy between a first generation original and the carbon copy of that original. There could also be 3 or more carbon copies of the same if it were a letter. Is a 3rd copy equal to the original? I fully understand and respect where you are coming from I just cannot agree to it. I just do not think anyone would buy the carbon copy over the original copy. I do not mind it being called an "autograph" as long as "carbon copy" is in there. I just do not see how a carbon copy is equal status to an original ink or pencil autograph. I think calling them "autographs" alone without qualifying they are "carbon copies" muddies the already murky waters of autograph collecting.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
There is a reason that when signing an official document the agency keeps the "top" or "original" copy. Live ink matters. They always give the signer the "customer" or "carbon" copy for their records.
I still believe, in rare cases, it may be an affordable alternative for display purposes. And there would be a value added if verified. But nothing near an ink signed document, letter, etc.
-
-
Agreed, Joe. I think a carbon copy for collectible pursuits is more desirable than an autopen for sure...and has value that an autopen signature would not have. So I think a carbon version say of Madonna would have some value. Let’s, for discussion purposes, say a Madonna live ink autograph is worth $1000. Then I think a carbon copy could be worth perhaps up to maybe $200...so about 20% of the live ink one.
-
-
I guess what percentage would be up to the potential buyer. I am huge Madonna fan. But, I still consider a carbon copy a novelty and would only remotely think about it at 10% or less. I would have to think long and hard to even consider 5%. Chances are I would walk away, save my money to get a live signature.
-
-
Yeah, 20% is probably too high. Maybe 10%, maybe less. If someone offered a real carbon of Madonna’s first and last name for $100, I would probably buy it.
-
-
Scott, I too completely respect your opinion, and I too believe that “carbon copy” or “carbon duplicate” should precede the word autograph. Absolutely. And I also believe that the first copy is unquestionably most desirable and more valuable. So I don’t think we’re that far apart on this. I just believe that the carbon version is in fact a “real” Autograph that one could personally hold dear knowing that it was created by the celeb him or herself and not by a machine of any kind.
-
-
I agree that a carbon copy is as Eric stated. I think it was created by the motion of the original so it is indirect but I am comfortable with calling it a "carbon copy autograph." It was certainly created by the person and has value because of that.and may be a good substitute for an original for a very hard to find person. I think carbon copies are likely going to be scarce unless a person held on to them for tax write-off purposes. I never kept mine years ago. So I suspect there are not a ton of carbon copy autographs out there unlike checks or original receipts. I also agree that great caution would need to be used with them for the reasons Steve Z. pointed out.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Blog Posts
Gold & Pawn Trading Center Sells Forged Mickey Mantle Photo COA GFA
Posted by CJCollector on November 27, 2024 at 2:23pm 0 Comments 1 Like
Ebay Seller Smpsportscards Sells Forged Counterfeit Willie Mays 1996-97 Topps Autograph Card
Posted by CJCollector on November 11, 2024 at 6:03pm 0 Comments 1 Like
COA CSA Authentic Forged Babe Ruth Cut Autograph Laughable
Posted by CJCollector on November 9, 2024 at 2:32pm 7 Comments 0 Likes
Photos
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
