CANDID PHOTOS - TO SIGN OR NOT TO SIGN

As a lover of autographed items I generally love photos that are signed. Then again as a hardcore 1950s scifi poster collector I never wanted any of my posters to be signed considering that a defacement of artwork. I've come across many vintage candid never-before-seen snapshot photos from the 1930s-1950s. I love these because they are so unique and sometimes regret that a great one was signed because it took away from the image. But then again other times I really enjoy one of these gems when it's signed.
What is your opinion?
Attached are two examples

Take care,
Irv Gelb

My.Movie.Memorabilia



Views: 217

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jeffery Kite on June 20, 2010 at 4:46pm
I, for one, like them. They're unique, more personal, and very nice depictions of the guys.You just don't see them in these particular shots everyday. Thanks for sharing.
Permalink Reply by DC on February 1, 2011 at 7:31am

Hey there,

 

I prefer cards as opposed to photos.  However when a photo is being signed, I definately don't get into the "candid" shots.  As far as I am concerned by signing that photo, the actor is "authorizing" the shot.  If they are signing something that is poor quality and doesn't show case thier work......well then I don't care enough to bother with it.  In case of most candids they are not great shots, and usually have no true context to any of the actors work so whats the point.

Permalink Reply by E.B.G. on March 10, 2011 at 9:15pm
Irv- I avoid these like the plague.  I think it takes away from the glamor of vintage Hollywood.  The Hollywood that I remember. I would too rather have a blank signed card than a photo of a star arriving at a event.

RSS

© 2025   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

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