Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 5, 2016 at 12:17am

For me, it is enough to make me really not like it. The removal of the doodle now with this...it is a "new" item IMO. Less is not always more.

For clarity - "...and the loop looks odd now - no longer a smooth curve, and lighter (the darkest spot has moved to the left)..." - I am speaking of the last loop in "Paul" - the "l".

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on February 5, 2016 at 12:24am

It would still sell although it has this done to it. Theres 3 other mc sigs on the piece, but these paper restorers need to be accountable for their work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 5, 2016 at 12:31am

Hi Paul,

The sweetness of a good price does not have the shelf life of the knowledge of enhancement and what is now apparently alteration. I have not seen the item in hand so my observations are limited obviously, I mean, I don't know the seller or potential buyer. But using certain darks and lights as benchmarks, something is looking different somewhere on some signatures. This may look great, now anyway, but in my estimation this can never be a top tier item in terms of quality/originality - and that is what we want, isn't it?

Eric

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on February 5, 2016 at 7:18am

I am probably in the minority, but I personally hate "restorations," and in my opinion adding new ink to old ink cannot be considered restoration.  To my way of thinking whenever anything is added to the original ink it no longer is completely signed by that person.  I would not want Charlie Nobodys ink on top of Paul McCartney's no matter how "better" it appears afterwards.  The one thing I will say is that seller is to be commended for being honest about the restoration. It is a to each his own type of thing.  The one thing I am firm about is that anyone that sells a restored item, and fails to disclose it is guilty of fraud.  As I stated before the seller of this was honest and that is always a good thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on February 5, 2016 at 8:38am

Scott,he didn't disclose that information.I found the original myself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on February 5, 2016 at 9:01am

Oh I did not realize that thanks Paul and good luck should you decide to buy it.  If it was me I would consider the restoration a negative rather than positive in regards to price though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on February 5, 2016 at 9:20am

I'm going to use that as the elephant in the room.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 5, 2016 at 10:43am

It is a negative IMO, and a problem altered piece and why was this not mentioned up front?! Auctioned with which photos? Restored when? Is any of this correct? Surely not? I'd not want that at any price and the possible (IDK) obfuscation would cost my business forever. I bet it is a hard item to sell. It IS a white elephant, and they have long memories. Add in the future potential for additional change over time - what is the upside? Good price doesn't beat bad flavor which lingers. Don't buy the elephant IMHO. I am sure I am getting the timeline wrong?

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 5, 2016 at 10:33am

What? Not disclosed? I am reading wrong?

IF so, I would be out of there instantly. If something like this happened to me - I asked yesterday how you'd feel about finding a before photo after purchase - you knew? I must be reading wrong.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on February 5, 2016 at 10:55am

You are reading right Eric,I did my research on the piece myself and found out that it was restored myself.the seller did not disclose the info to me.Im getting in touch with him over the weekend to ask a bunch of questions mainly why he didn't disclose that resto fact.I'm wondering g if he was the 2nd buyer after the resto and maybe he himself doesn't know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 5, 2016 at 11:00am

I don't have emoticons for this. I would be gone like a flash. I would hope a Dealer would notice this on a Beatles multi-signed poster  - just playing in Photoshop reveals much work. What do folks look at? Not for me at any price - problem item to me.

Eric

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 5, 2016 at 11:03am

I didn't realize that the seller didn't disclose the restoration. That is a big concern. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 20
• Next ›
• Page