PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS, NOT BLOGS.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST, THANKS.

Would you (or wouldn't) restore Paul and Ringo's signatures on this item if you owned it?

This John and George signed item from 1967 was recently posted on Tracks. It is noted that Paul and Ringo also signed It, but had sadly faded. 

You can still see where both Ringo and Paul signed. Just a curiosity question for the group. Would you have this restored or keep as is? 

Views: 953

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Depending on how it's done, yes, I'd restore them.

I've been wanting to start a discussion on this but I'm waiting a week or so. The idea would be to get it done before they fade into oblivion but sure is it really going to hurt the item to have it restored .

If you do it would be great to see the finished item ,does anyone know how they would do it ,i remember some reinking being discussed last year with mixed results  

I wouldn't touch it

I’d prefer to leave it as-is rather than paying for altered signatures.

At $3400 it’s fairly reasonably priced.  I would consider restoration if it could be done for a price that would keep the total price below $6000.  Restoration will not hurt the unrestored value of John and George’s signatures and if done properly will enhance the value to some potential buyers but not all.  Based on the picture I think there is enough of Paul’s and Ringo’s signatures to have a good attempt at it. So I’m for getting it done.

Fab, so you believe that you would recoup the amount you invested in restoration? I personally could not justify that.  As a potential buyer, if I am going to invest that much in a beatles set, I do not want restored signatures.

I agree - the caveat would be 1967 signatures by all 4 at the same time.

I agree with Terrier and Ballroom.  I personally don’t like the idea of altering signatures...unless you can get Paul and Ringo to do the altering.  

As for doing it for value enhancement, I don’t understand how altering an item can enhance the value...unless you’re talking about cleaning dirt and debris from an item.  But to me signature alteration should be off- limits.  And how could it enhance the value since the enhancement wouldn’t be done by Paul’s or Ringo’s hand?  

Plus, would a potential future buyer be made aware of this alteration?

The fact of the matter is items that are 50 years old are looking at needing restoration in some form or other. 

I have a ‘63 set that needs no restoration. In fact, I have Lincoln and Grant signatures that are mint, Paul.  I respectfully disagree with you.

How can you disagree look at the post. You certainly can buy autographs that don't need any restoration but many do. Poster also are being restored all the time.

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2020   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service