PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS, NOT BLOGS.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST, THANKS.

How do you feel about this? To "sticker" or not to "sticker' ... that is the question............

This signed Paul Newman was once a part of my collection at one point.  As you can see, it had a third party authentication sticker adhered to it when a previous owner had used that particular authentication service.  

How do you feel about the use of stickers like this?  The person who had this done had gone to the trouble to submit the photo and invest in the service.  They had chosen to have the label attached so that information would prominently remain as a part of the history of the piece.  Many items have these kind of stickers on them and many more on the verso of a given photo.

One advantage I can think of is if you lose the accompanying certificate or letter from the TPA, you have the sticker on the item itself to show it passed authentication.  Is this a good practice....perhaps it even increases the desirability of the piece?  oes this take away from the aesthetic of the item?  Or perhaps it makes no difference at all?

I'd be interested to hear thoughts from members......

Views: 242

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm a fan of stickers on the front, but of course, it depends on the location as well.

I don't think there is a right or wrong on whether to place it on the front, back or LOA.

You don't like it in the front of the item? that's your opinion. Same applies for the back of the item.

Doesn't make you a better collector b/c of a sticker's location. At the end of the day, the signed item is for you.

Thanks, Jorge... I appreciate you taking the time to share that. That's why I framed the original post the way I did..hoping to hear various thoughts and the reasons why.

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2021   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service