Hi Guys, thanks again for your expertise. I have a chance to buy a cut autograph. It comes with the letter sent in 1976 and this was supposedly the return card. He mounted it with the photo. I only own a couple cuts (I prefer photos). What are your thoughts and does $250 sound fair?

Views: 176

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I would skip that just on contrast.Even if authentic (I did not look), the memory of a good price fades, but poor contrast will never improve.

Do you mean the fading on the autograph? I kind of noticed that too. The color of the paper doesnt help. Thanks for the input.

Light ink application or fading, it is not a good look. If genuine, which I doubt, it is easily overpowered by a good b/w photo and on its own it wouldn't look much. I just don't see any eye appeal.

Blast contrast on a vintage album pages is not the norm, but one does the best they can with those inks and papers. This is from RR:

Think it might be printed. 

MIght well be. Very hard to see with that scan. And buying framed things is never a good idea unless you can examine the item in hand. Frames=surprises.

Is this the same? 

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Holy crap, it is exactly the same! I overlayed them in photoshop. Where did that one come from if you don't mind me asking. The guy even has a letter that he sent to John Wayne and said he got this back. I asked why John Wayne sent back a cut. He said he couldn't remember. Wow. just wow. 

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. It appears to be exactly the one Mike shared. exactly. You guys are the BEST! I am learning from you! 

That is another example? It is the same exact signature so how is the paper and matting different? This indicates a print (prints). And explains the framing.

You NAILED it!

My pleasure. Mike did it. I just used my eyes. I don't think $250 sounds so good now ;)

RSS

© 2025   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service