Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Stone on January 9, 2017 at 6:57am

yeah, of course it depends on what is signed. A full band signed pepper album with Mccartney's signature, well.....

But a single 1963 signature on a piece of paper vs a 2016 signature on a piece of paper, there isn't THAT much difference.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on January 9, 2017 at 11:49am

Not so sure about that. For Macca maybe but an uninscribed  90s Bowie on a piece of plain paper is definitely worth considerably less than an uninscribed 70s Bowie on a piece of plain paper and a 70s uninscribed Lennon on a piece of plain paper is certainly worth more than an early 60s uninscribed Lennon on a piece of plain paper.

I saw an 87 Bowie on a Berlin fleamarket last year. It was in an album with some lesser signatures for Euro 250. I left it after much consideration. It had some appeal as it had been signed outside the Hansa Studios and included a separate signature from Peter Frampton - not my cup of tea at all but in Bowie's band at the time. I still somewhat regret not buying it. Had it been signed during Bowie's Berlin years (late 70s) I would have snapped it up like there was no tomorrow.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Stone on January 9, 2017 at 3:30pm

Huh, I wouldn't think a 70's Lennon is worth more than an early 60's one, and have no clue why it would be more valuable.

I am not that familiar with Bowie, but I imagine there are of course people outside of the Beatles that are different. The best one I can think of is William Henry Harrison, something signed as president could be worth like $150,000, something just signed, maybe $500. Perhaps the most drastic example in price difference based on "when it was signed"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on January 9, 2017 at 3:37pm

You started this discussion with saying

"I feel like an autograph captures a certain moment in time and I'd much rather picture a 24 year old Beatle standing over my piece than a much older 2016 one"

So you like me prefer a Beatles era signature. I think it is fair to say there are collectors who would pay more for a vintage signature over a modern one...Especially if it had a great lineage with it.

I believe in general most collectors are willing to pay more for the history.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Stone on January 9, 2017 at 3:57pm

Yep, I agree most are willing to pay moe for history, but it is not always the case. I guess when I started this topic, being in the Beatles forum, it was meant just for The Beatles, but really this topic could go for all autographs and we could debate individual ones.

But in this instance here a 1967 Harrison is selling for the same amount as a 1995 one and IMO they are on comparable things. You could make the case that the 1995 one is of better quality (it is newer) but the case being made that older Beatles are a lot more expensive is really not necessarily true in general even if people desire the older ones more.

http://www.tracks.co.uk/acatalog/__George_Harrison_Autographs.html

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on January 9, 2017 at 4:26pm

Maybe for monetary value you are right. For sentimental value (imo) an era signature where that person was their most prolific is what attracts me most.

People change all the time. A 24 year old Paul McCartney is in essence a different man than a 74 year old aged man...Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate him now and then.

However the man signing his name in his 20`s wrote those Beatles songs and signed his name in that same year as whatever song he was working on and the younger self signed with a slightly different flourish.

Paul McCartney now is obviously that same man, but has experienced more and isn't as hungry or writing the same type of songs. To me I want to capture that moment in time.. That might sound weird or lame, but it is the closest oneself can go back in time by preserving history. The music speaks for itself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patrick Batson on January 9, 2017 at 4:02pm

Vintage signed trumps all, in almost every case

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on January 9, 2017 at 10:23pm

Going back to the Harrison prices from James' link, I think you'll find that an individual Harrison signed in 1963 will usually sell for considerably less than one signed in 1967 or later.

In James' link Tracks don't list an early Harrison but there is a set of individually signed early 60s album pages under the "all four" section that is only £3,250.

http://www.tracks.co.uk/acatalog/__Beatles_Autographs_-_Full_Sets.html

Given that Lennon has to be worth more than the other three you are certainly paying less than £1,000 for George. The later Harrisons are almost all above £1,000 and (ignoring the books) one is actually £1,500. I assume that sheer rarity plays a major role here.

The same applies to full sets. Plain vanilla 1965-1969 sets will be worth a lot more than plain vanilla 1963 sets, mainly because they are far rarer. Artistic output considerations may come into it a bit as well but rarity is key. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page