Which is better - autograph on photo or autograph and inscription?

Rightly or wrongly I have always been of the opinion that a photograph which bears an inscription from the signer - e.g. "To Fred" is less likely to be a fake than a plain signature (I am not considering secretarials here).

Also, a message with a signature gives you more material to work with in assessing whether it's genuine or not.

That's just my personal opinion and I guess my preference. But what do others think?

Also, suppose you have access to someone whose autograph you want and they are open to writing whatever the heck you wish on, say, a photo. It could be a personal message to you, or it could be a line from a movie they were in, or a generic greeting. What would you suggest? Which do you think might make the item more bankable?

Views: 181

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Most collectors prefer signed photos that are not personalized. Personally, that is a minor consideration to me. I look more for other variables such as pose, condition, contrast, etc.

I especially like when the celebrity uses one of their movie quotes when signing. 

I've asked a couple musicians for song lyrics. Many are happy to oblige.

In the old Studio days of Hollywood secretaries cranked out personalized autographed photos to most all letter writers, the exception being Joan Crawford who answered all fan mail. There probably are some others but they were much too busy making film after film to answer fan mail. There is a good majority of TTM celebrities these days who legitimately sign your requests and most personalize so it doesn’t end up on eBay. I know during these days of covid most celebrities welcome the mail. I personally will collect personalized autographs but prefer to find ones that have been personalized to Nick or my son Charlie.

I prefer inscriptions, particularly movie quotes.

Depends on the book - a good association copy (or something with strong provenance linking it to a previous owner) is worth its weight in gold to me.

If the signature is nice visible, better the photo.

The photos signed, for me better ballpoint pen, have more value.

Well thanks for the replies so far, people. I guess it is personal, really, no one best way.

'I was following a lovely collection at auction - looked like it - recently. Most of the big hitters were inscribed to the owner by name although I could see a couple of those were secretarial. I probably should have bought it but at the end of the day I couldn't decide one way or another about the "inscribed to a name" factor - i.e. how easy or not they would be to move on when necessary. I'm probably none the wiser about that but I know what I like -if it is inscribed "to Fred" I am more than ok with that.

personilized is worth less and now both are being faked so that doesnt matter 

vintage sigs are worth more 

RSS

© 2022   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service