We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
NEWLY UPDATED 5.19.18 REWRITE 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).
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 Is it unique or unpublished?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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
So yes, I am still developing a way to tabulate those new A,B and C designations from "Continuation of Quality Assessment Regarding Autographs:" above in a way that allows sensible decisions to be arrived at "dispassionately" with regard to item comparison/selection. Wish me luck. It will at least be a way to discuss these things. Even a flawed system will work if you work it, and that is better than "nothing" IMO.
-
-
New 1996 Billy Corgan Virgin promotional portrait © by Linda Johnson. It comes out quite well when run through these equations I am working on. I am pleased. Strong B+ I believe - better grade when in hand. Very good contrast, placement OK, dedicated "To Ervin" and with the little star, not the most superb signature but dated and on a 1st generation gelatin silver promo still by a known photographer. What do you think of it?
PS - I know there are 3-4 of these "qualities" threads running around now, each an attempt at improvement, but and and all new data will be confined to this thread, which will eventually be a blog.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on
-
For full disclosure I have no idea what songs this group ever did but have heard of them. Were I to collect them this a very fine choice in my opinion. The things I like is that it appears to be an official b/w still so a very clear image. As I have oft times mentioned I love inscribed autographs! I know that is a minority view but I view this as not just a sterile name only autograph. This was signed to a particular person at a particular time giving it historical context. I also loved dated items again a minority view. I think I mentioned in regards to a David Bowie autograph a while back that I love blue Sharpie too!
-
-
Thanks Scott! I appreciate it. Yes, an official still - and I am hoping for doubleweight paper. I agree with all you said - dedication, date, context...without those things, to me anyway, signatures can seem like...balloons with no string.
-
-
Hello folks,
I have taken the above criterion that makes the body of this thread and written out, in bold, my own thoughts on the Billy Corgan autograph shown at below to see how this method is working. I will not be comparing this to anything here, but that is what this system is for ultimately. I think the Quality Assessment section needs to be numerical and still A,B and C, with + and - retained. The purchase itself came out better than I thought after running it through here.
I hope this is helpful/interesting. I learned more about this system, and this autograph, just writing this out.
Is the signed item vintage or more recent? 1993 Siamese Dream period. Perfect time for me.
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 marked by the artist or ©? Original official Virgin Records promotional portrait.
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, Watson or the like? Original promotional print (dated) from the negative on single weight paper (likely), with label logo and © rock photographer Linda Johnson. High quality with lovely image.
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 sleeve present? Has the autograph been "helped", altered, "edited or it is original as signed by the celebrity intended? Has it been restored and if so, properly? From what I can see, condition is very high. It does not appear trimmed, damaged or altered.
Is the autograph contemporary to the item or was it added later? 1993 photographic print (dated) with signature dated 1996. This is fine - and 1996 is the year I saw him perform the most.
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? Fiber tipped blue marker. Normal pen/ink for item/signer/period.
Is there a dedication? An inscription (if any 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 celebrity/role/music? Dedicated and dated (many are), with usual star doodle.
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? The ink appears to be in a very high state of preservation.
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? 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? Contrast is strong, placement of autograph pretty good. Autograph is not lost but working pretty well with image. Obviously signed to avoid blue ink over anything black. I like this - shows care in the signing. Normal placement for Corgan I believe.
Is this a clear, typical example of this signature or it is unusual for the period or artist? Not the cleanest signature, but not hideous, fairly typical and with dedication and a nice big date that gives context.
Is the signature interesting/unusual/unique without the strength of the item? I think so, having a date places it in time and the dedication gives it...a name.
What are the recent auction and sale results for similar material? Cost was below normal.
What is the frequency of similar material available with comparable presentation and/or condition? Do you see these items frequently signed? I don't monitor this Like Gleason, but you don't see these all the time, not with all these qualities combining with good price.
In comparison with similar items for quality, is this mediocre, exceptional or something in between? In sum, I think it is better than average.
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? Very well indeed - all are official products; all have an image of the artist etc.
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? Signed photograph, desirable for artist/period and very displayable.
Is the item truly vintage (as possible for the artist) - Y/N? Yes (decent, not 1989 but not 2010 either)
Signature: Quality/Condition – A,B,C B+
Placement – A,B,C A
Contrast – A,B,C A
Dedicated/Inscribed/Other (sketch, quote etc.) – Y/N? Yes
Dated – Y/N? Yes
-
-
So, I am finding as long as I answer the questions honestly, this system or method of making judgments hopefully unencumbered by emotion is working OK. I need to make those last bits numerical as mentioned. It is like Strasberg - LOL, I don't mean it is that good, no, just that this is a way, not the only way, to navigate. This is just what I consider important. What flips your switch on? I encourage those interested to make their own lists with their own criterion. Like a personal map to help you get your collection where you want it to go. That is what we all want, no?
-
-
I have never really made out a list of criteria like you have done. I do have a less comprehensive list with my main category as (1) Authenticity (Autographed Letter Signed (in full), document or album page, card or photograph from a known collection that matches known exemplars), (2) Signature (is it bold throughout, medium with a skip or two, light or other problems such as smeared ink, bank stamps or punch holes etc.) placement as in your example. My personal taste for ink is ballpoint (especially blue), fountain pen (especially the turquoise or green),Sharpie (especially blue), felt tip and lastly paint pen (not wild about paint pens). Overall condition of excellent, very good, good, fair and poor. With me often I have space fillers of a not so great autograph just awaiting a better one. There are also ones that are perfectly good examples but I will see a document, ALS or perhaps an in person index card from a known collector and I will get that too. Something like an heir and a spare. I also have bought autographed letters or notes that are only signed with the first name if I have a full signature to go with that. I have a Charlotte Rae note signed on her stationary as "Charlotte" but also have a photograph signed in full. Mine is not nearly as scientific as your system. I should also add if it is a photograph, album page, index card or book it gets extra points from me if it is inscribed!!!
-
-
Thanks Scott for writing that out. You do have clear preferences. I agree, esp turquoise and green (ie Violet Zane) and regarding inscriptions! And as is often said in coins "ownership adds a point" ;)
-
-
Thank you Eric! This is an example of what I consider an almost perfect index card. Excellent provenance from a very well known and almost entirely in person collector of the 1950s-80s. Good color on ink and great contrast. A nice amount of writing more than the usual. Scarce and not often seen signature.
-
-
I agree again. With regard to index cards - they can be "perfect" or nearly so. The one you just posted is very nice indeed, good contrast and content show quickly. Well balanced - good placement. The flair of that hand reminds be a bit of De Kelley.
That another thing - the form - index card or photo etc. Once a collector decides on a form, or forms, and index cards are as good as anything - one can start to compare them and see what a quality index card really is or can be. They could be - not graded (although possible), but in terms of quality - they can be evaluated and placed on a spectrum of quality. The system I am working on will allow, hopefully, to choose one item, an index card or photo it doesn't matter, over another when selecting 'keepers" from like items. That is actually what it was designed for - I find it keeps my head level when making upgrade decisions. One can plug in their own criterion re ink, form (photo, card etc).
I agree re pain pen, the older types especially worrisome, and I do worry about the more sulphurous album pages and things like signed Player's Directory pages or newsprint as they are so fragile. My Rock and Roll collection has received much of my attention lately, but in my other collections, TV/theater etc, I have album pages and Players Directory and index and all.
I really had no idea how strong that Corgan was, to me anyway, until I wrote out this recent post out and answered all my own questions. I have been looking at 1996 Corgan's, this might be a little fuller then some! Many seem abbreviated by one letter - they may be typical.
-
-
Well, this has arrived and I have had time to examine it - good gets better. It is a beautiful true satin finish original promotional. Perfect surfaces. B+ to A in hand. Very pleased!!!
-
-
Glad that it proved as good in person as it did via scan. Sometimes even with a good scan it is a bit of a crap shoot until you actually see it.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
