Some of the Qualities of an Autograph Listed with an Early Attempt at an "Equation" for Evaluation (Results will vary of course - it must be customized and continued).

ALL additions are welcome. This may be a futile endeavor to some, but is a stopped watch is correct twice a day then a flawed system will function if worked. I am trying to make a checklist or even an equation or set of equations to help decisions to be made regarding desirability/quality w/o emotion (often the downfall - the sheer sometimes blinding WANT) between LIKE items. 

So far we have had:

The Qualities of an Autograph:

Is the signed item vintage or more recent?

Is the signed item a marked official licensed product like an LP, Cassette, CD, DVD, promotional photograph/still (SP), ticket, etc., or something else - like a cheap copy photo? Book photo? Magazine? An 11x14 grainy copy image enlarged simply to grab $ or an 8x10 from the label/studio?  

If an LP, Cassette, CD, DVD etc. is this an original first release, a promo item, or a later re-release? If an SP, it is a recent copy print or vintage print from the negative? Was the photograph developed on single or double weight paper? Is the image candid? Is it unique or unpublished? Is it signed, stamped, or marked (©) by the photographer/designer/artist/studio? Is it a photograph of independent interest and value like the works of Mick Rock, Gruen, Shapiro, Gorman or the like?

What is the overall condition – folds/creases, water damage/rippling, spots/stains, tape, fading, framing restoration etc. considering the item, its age, rarity & other factors (has it been trimmed, etc.)? If an LP, are the vinyl and original inner sleeve present? Has the autograph been "helped", altered, "edited", or it is original as signed and intended by by the celebrity? Has it been restored and, if so, properly?

Is the autograph contemporary to the item or was it added later?

Is the autograph in pencil, fountain, ballpoint or fiber/felt tip? Paint pen/metallic? Other? What instruments/inks are usually encountered with this type of item from the period in question?

Is there a dedication? An inscription (if any is possible)? Is it dated? Is this signature usually accompanied by a date etc.? Are there additional features such as musical notations, sketches, doodles, lyrics, quotes/lines that are connected the the celebrity/role/music? This will add interest.

What is the condition of the autograph? Any smudging from the signing or later wear from storage (hairlines, scratches etc)? Has the ink changed color or faded? Take care with certain paint pens.

Is there optimal contrast and placement of the autograph with regard to the image or other features? Does the ink color clash with the item or sing? Does the autograph align with elements of the image and recede, rendering the signature less than noticeable, or is the contrast strong? Because of placement or pen? Does the autograph fight with the image or sit nicely? Is the autograph lost or is it overpowering? Is the placement, independent of the image, typical of the artist?

Is this a clear, typical example of this signature or it is unusual for the period of the artist?

Is the signature interesting/unusual/unique without the strength of the item? Is the item interesting and desirable without the signature (ideal).

What are the recent auction and sale results for similar material?

What is the frequency of similar material available with comparable presentation and/or condition? Do you see these items frequently signed?

In comparison with similar items for quality, is this mediocre, exceptional or something in between?

How does this fit in with other items you have collected using similar criterion? Is this or a similar item offered anywhere else online for more/less? 

I now add (with an attempt to quantify):

Continuation of Quality Assessment Regarding Autographs:

 

What is the (signed) product/form - LP, Cassette, CD, DVD, SP, SP (postcard), concert ticket, album page etc? Which is more desirable for the period?

 

Is the item truly vintage (as possible for the artist) - Y/N?

Signature:

Quality - A,B,C

Condition – A,B,C

Placement – A,B,C

Contrast – A,B,C

Dedicated/Inscribed/Other (sketch, quote etc.) – Y/N?

Dated – Y/N?

 

Signatures of superior form and quality/condition may override other weaknesses, but it must be strong.

Please add your thoughts, critiques, ideas, notions, observations and all.

Thank you, many like John and Eva have made wonderful additions.

Eric.

I have decided to add this bit from another thread on these subjects. This is also experimental but meant to be illustrative, thought inspiring...not exact. The data below has been rewritten twice since originally posted.

I tried to select some more or less equivalent Bowie SP's and assign them quality ratings (NOT grades) for comparison - A to D with "+'s" and even "-'s". This is a trial post - add/change/suggest - please! I feel this area is lacking in development and attention. An alarming number of my collector friends are paying well over lab photo prices for grainy 11x14 2nd gen pc prints and magazine pages with rushed, poor or problem signatures with a lack of qualities and contrast issues and I am trying to quantify this in some way to address this. And, yes, there are many ways to skin a cat. ;) And no, this does not address scarcity alone (understanding vintage or rare is often preferable and can overcome other issues), just some aspects of what can make quality. The more tangible ones to start. Maybe I am going about this the wrong way (!) - open to all suggestions. So many variables...what is your way?

NOTE: I was chatting with a friend in here about quality. I don't think I ever explained fully why I prefer the studio photo, the promo and vintage stamped photo etc.

I suspect most forgers produce many attempts, and then settle on one to sell. This is often an album page, a loose cut etc. or Playbill page etc; it would be very costly to practice or "produce" signatures on valuable vintage promo photographs or items. Same with dedications and inscriptions, which I also prefer. It is an area the forger often avoids. Apart from adding context, it is more to catch errors in. These things are not hard rules, obviously, but just one part of a...multi front defense. 

******May 19, 2018 Rewrite stops here*****

The information below contains errors and will be corrected in due course...

A, B, & C

A+: Vintage Official original 1976 release 11x14 (large) lobby card with full release and studio data, compelling/classic image from famous film, complimentary ink color, great placement and very decent contrast, with smooth beautiful very vintage 1979 signature. Photo by Chuck White. Would an inscription be better? To me, yes! More is more! (Note: this is actually printed backward, often a problem, but the image is so strong and the many other qualities more than compensate!).

A (strong): Good promotional label/studio marked 1st gen 8x10 lab photo still (look how crisp), b/w yes but © and with label info, sharp borders, awesome image, engaging and with superb contrast and placement. Pretty strong with almost full signature - some minor fuzziness. A lab photo has an inherent quality a magazine photo or news clipping does NOT. They are made to throw away, like many adverts. One lasts about a century with decent ink and care - guess which?

B+: Strong image. Vintage classic Ziggy, possibly Official vintage photo (looks 2nd gen from flat contrast and lack of darks/depth), candid pose (good in some cases, great here as this is The 1980 Floor Show (added desirability) - final Ziggy late '73), unmarked photo though, large rare vintage signature at typical slant, fair contrast at best. The vintage photo, signature, composition (great photo) and Ziggy image make this a B+ despite the contrast issue. At least it was not signed in black.

B (strong): Classic period/awesome pose but quite poor contrast (black on black) and placement, Not the best photo to get signed - something to think about when selecting. True, it is an Official promo with label markings, but overall not greatly remarkable apart from vintage signature and quality 1st gen image with photographers name/label etc. It's a great B. Not a C+ because it is an Official label promo photo and a great image - I'd take it any day over the B below.

B-: Unknown "pop" period image (Glass Spider), grainy, strong signature and placement, but contrast a bit impaired by the design behind it - too busy and distracting. Mediocre image. Were this a 70's image it would fare much better. Technically this overtakes the one below on at least two counts

C-: Probably unofficial (likely 2nd gen photo or less from tight odd crop and slight softness), unmarked, printed backwards, less than stellar contrast/placement, messy signature, uncompelling image, thumbtack hole.

D (Damaged): Newspaper cut/clipping, poor/stained condition (ripped/taped), a bit of scarce handwriting but not enough to overcome obstacles. Newspaper not permanent and will yellow/crumble. Folds and worn creases also often come into play in these cases.