We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

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: 1442

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You can still see it clearly but it's faded pretty badly.I thought about it and I kinda put myself in a buyer's shoes.i said to myself would want to pay top dollar  For the piece knowing another hand has gone over Lennon's?

My answer to myself was no I wouldn't.

That's just my opinion guys.this is highly debatable.

That’s exactly how I feel.  And if that’s how others feel, I don’t see how you really increase the value by doing such a thing.  

Let’s say you buy a signed baseball with a Lou Gehrig autograph, and it rates about a nice 7 in terms of boldness.  However, that boldness came about because a previous owner “restored” it by tracing over Gehrig’s autograph.  If it had been sent in to JSA after the enhancement, JSA will note that the Gehrig autograph has been traced over by an unknown hand.

If you eventually try to sell that ball, many collectors will shy away from it because it has been “tampered” with.  And if someone does buy it, it will not bring close to the market value of an untampered with 7 Gehrig ball.

There's no question the pros and cons of restoration is a conundrum and I see both arguments.  Fading is a killer; I've lost several vintage non-Beatles signatures to sunlight and my own casual displaying ignorance.

For me, it would depend on the item. If the paper or photo was torn, the edge was clipped or crumpled, I'd lean towards doing it, especially if some light gentle restoration returned a set of full signatures to their full glory.

On the other hand, if the signatures were visible and the item was without damage (other than ink loss), I'd leave them be.

I personally would not invest the cost of this item, plus the cost of restoration, in order to have a "restored" full set.  You can find one without issues for about the same price, and then you don't have to deal with the restoration issue if and when you sell it in the future.

First rule in autographs: never touch them

This is the thing I hate about autographs is having to play preservation. 

Even before: make sure it's genuine?

If restoration would more than pay for itself I'm sure Tracks would have it done themselves, disclose the restoration appropriately and take the extra profit.

Here's the piece with a little more contrast. Best I could do:

What a monstrosity!

The faded sigs are likely felt tip art pens.

Reminds of a red felt tip Ringo that someone had obviously had on the wall for years. I think I caught it just in the nick of time:

My own opinion is, I wouldn't purchase this. I would say save your money at this point for a more complete set, especially over restoring it and the cost involved that goes with that. 

However that being said. I don't think the value will go down on the item by restoring it. While restoration copies of comic books are worth less then their counterparts...They do still bring value. The one thing I have learned about collecting. There is a market for anything. There very well be a person who would be ok with 2 restored signatures to this item and be happy with the fact it was signed by all 4 Beatles, even though two needed reinked. It may not be all of our cup of tea, but restoring the two doesn't hurt the other two signatures on the item. 

Restoration should always be noted. This item does come with good provenance too. 

RSS

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

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