Simply stated, for me, more is simply more. And the more the better - to me. Resale - I am told no dedication is best. I disagree. I am in the minority here, apart from certain vintage collectors. A dedication/inscription adds a whole other dimension of time and space, IMHO. Others will disagree - maybe don't listen to them.
Obviously Ed Markowitz didn't care. Or maybe it was sold by his estate. Who knows? Personalizations do hurt the potential value a bit. Still, an authentic autograph is still authentic.
From an antiquarian point of view, the more writing the better. An inscribed or dedicated autograph better if dated because it helps establish provenance.
For security reasons, I don't think there's anything inherently risky about having your name on the item, since it's something so widely available anyway. However, it can potentially annoy the signer, because they'll know exactly who sold it.
Neil Armstrong comes to mind specifically here. After Apollo 11, he spent the rest of his life getting hundreds of autograph requests per day. Because his NASA career had been funded by the taxpayers, he felt it was his duty to respond to them all. But to prevent people from exploiting that generosity for profit, he would dedicate most of his autographs to the first and last name of the person making the request, and then make a note of the names that were being sold later. And in addition, his secretary would keep a running list of every name that came in, discarding letters from people who wrote in repeatedly. Neil spent a massive amount of his life signing photos, so it was important to strictly monitor the incoming requests to keep them from being overwhelming.
In the mid 90's, the internet created a major outlet for resellers. And Neil was dismayed by the amount of his autographs that were immediately showing up for sale. He sacrificed a lot of time to give his signature to anyone who wanted it, only to see half of them for sale a week later. One day, he received a letter from an old NASA colleague, asking for an autograph for her grandson. Neil happily obliged. A few days later, the signature was listed for sale, and it was the last straw. Neil stopped signing entirely.
I think that's the biggest reason to be cautious. If a famous person takes time out of their day to sign an autograph, it's essentially a gift. And when people turn around and sell that gift for a profit, it's insulting.
But I think that effect diminishes over time. If the autograph is immediately listed for sale, that was obviously the intention from the start, and it has the potential to annoy the signer. But if, for example, President Bush signed that photo 30 years ago, then I don't think anyone would be bothered.
I wonder who wrote the dedication/inscription? I find the sticker more troublesome than any dedication but that's me.
I've been selling my collection that I gathered TTM in the 1970s. Many of the autographs have my complete name and I don't have a problem with that. Interesting comment below about Neil Armstrong. He did sign it to my first and last name. I would never sell that one anyway because of sentimental value and the complete dedication makes it even more special.