Authenticity is Everything
Star Wars Collectors Unite!
I have been collecting Star Wars autographs since 1998. Not all of my signatures are on Star Wars memorabilia. For example, when I met Warwick Davis at a comic convention in New York City, I had him sign a Willow photograph. I also have publicity photos of Sir Alec Guinness and Christopher Lee from the 1970s, and a Natalie Portman signed The Diary of Anne Frank theater poster from her performance on Broadway back in 1998. My current wish list includes Peter Cushing, Terence Stamp and John Williams. I am interested in knowing about the collections and wish lists of other members.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Oh, come on. You had probably half the writing removed and you say it wasn't altered? Please.
It my be an accepted practice now, but time will tell.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike T on
-
By definition, a signature is not altered by removing the dedication. Signature is a signature. It has been an accepted practice since autograph collecting started. When done professionally, there is no way to tell it was ever there.
Here is the poster before restoration, I believe the restoration greatly increased the aesthetics and the value about 2-3x. If you would have rather owned the original, you are one in a million.
-
-
-
I have a $$$$ CD gatefold by a Rock God. It has a very slight smudge from the signing that could easily be removed/adjusted with a gentle swipe with Q-tip with alcohol, thus enhancing incredibly the eye appeal and thus the value. Is this acceptable, if wholesale inscription removal is? Which should be mentioned in the sale description? Why?
-
-
You can mention it for full disclosure, but if it's going to increase the value and appeal - why not do it? Especially if it is done by a well respected professional company. I would have zero issues with that purchase.
-
-
I would avoid an altered screwed with piece like the plague. Increase the value to who? Not me. Are we collecting quality or reselling?
-
-
-
Most people collect based on aesthetics and value and avoid smudged autographs like the plague.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
If you can completely remove a very slight smudge and it looks completely natural and doesn't leave a ghost on the surface, including under blacklight, I don't think it needs to be disclosed.
If it leaves a ghost on the surface or it doesn't look completely natural, then I think it definitely should be disclosed.
For me, that would be the same for the removal of personalization. Any ghost, even under blacklight, or surface refinishing, then I think it should be disclosed.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on
-
I agree, Steve.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
Absolutely awesome, Mike! Personally, having an inscription removed, if done well, does not hurt value on bit and could very well enhance it's value. A minor consideration.
-
-
"When done professionally, there is no way to tell it was ever there."
Exactly. Maybe I am off, but doesn't/didn't Oz dedicate/inscribe habitually? Why would one want something other/atypical? Are we editors now? Making the item the most saleable? I want as much handwriting as possible. Call me crazy. Or one in a million.
-
-
In recent years he always personalized, but early on he did not. In fact, some of his earliest autographs he simply signed the name of the puppet and later started adding "Frank Oz".
Why would you want something inscribed "To Mike" hanging on Eric's wall, just because it includes more letters? Are autographs personalized to longer names more desirable than shorter names?
Unless you are authenticating autographs, then I do not agree with the premise that more handwriting is always better.
© 2025 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
