We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

Should original movie posters be autographed?

This is one debate that just refuses to go away... If you were to ask 10 different collectors, you might get five votes "yes" and five votes "no," but each answer will come with a unique (and logical) reasoning as to why those people feel that way. In all my years of collecting, I have yet to be convinced of what is right and what is wrong.

Let's take, for example, an original poster for "Night of the Creeps" (one of my favorite horror/sci-fi flicks from the '80s). The movie is obscure in mainstream circles, but it has a devoted cult following. As such, let's assume an original one-sheet can be found for $65. A horror convention has the stars from the movie signing autographs for $20 each, and you get five signatures on the poster. You've now spent $165, but is it WORTH $165?

Depends on who you ask... To poster collectors who are attracted by the artwork, having the actors scribble their names in silver Sharpie might be tantamount to defacing the Mona Lisa, and the value plummets in their eyes. To the movie's fans, it will undoubtedly add SOME value, but probably not as much as you spent (just because YOU pay for autographs doesn't mean someone else is willing to). Of course, there's always the chance you can connect with a like-minded collector who will pay at least as much as you've spent (if not more).

A cheaper alternative might be getting a reproduction poster signed. The original "Night of the Creeps" one-sheet might go for $65, but let's say you can get a repro for $20 and have that autographed. Now you only have $100 invested, but you also might be alienating collectors who covet the signatures but balk at having an inferior copy of the poster.

You can't win, can you?

The problem with posters is that they are collectible in and of themselves. They are their own piece of memorabilia, and while some would welcome the autographs of those who participated in the making of the film, there are others who would prefer the original graphics not be compromised. And if you opt to get a cheap repro signed, well, that's just not quite the same, is it?

I have no idea who’s right and who’s wrong in situations like this, and in all honesty, I don’t think there is a correct answer. I guess it all depends on your particular approach to collecting. Maybe you’re someone who keeps in mind the secondary market value of your autographed items, or maybe you’re the kind of person who just wants something cool to hang on your wall and show your friends.

So… What kind of collector are you?

0 members like this

Comment by Josh Board on November 14, 2009 at 4:42pm: Thank you so much for writing this. I had an argument, about 10 years ago, with a baseball nut here at Autograph Magazine (it was before I started writing for this fine publication). And...he said a baseball signed by JUST Babe Ruth, was worth more signed by him, and other teammates on his Yankees team.

I explained that, yes, Ruth is the main one. You want that on the sweet spot, so it's shown. But no....the more, the merrier, for autograph and baseball fans. AS LONG AS no signature is going over Ruth, of course (and...in his defense, he wasn't talking about a signature by another Hall of Famer, like Lou Gehrig...but no name players). I say...that having those players makes it EXTREMELY rare, as believe it or not, there are lots of Ruth balls floating around. Not many with his fellow teammates. Not to mention, it certainly helps with authenticity purposes.

Now, your movie poster thing, is less of an interesting debate than baseball cards. A Mickey Mantle rookie...or in football, a Bronko Nagarski card, that's the most valuable. A signature by these people is actually DEFACING the card, making it "not MINT" condition. But to the autograph collector, sure...it obviously enhances the value.

So, take a Dueseburge automobile from 1928. It's worth a million bucks. So, if the maker signed the door...I'd say that's not as nice. The car is already worth so much, that that just makes it look odd.

So, with movie posters, I say that it leans, very easily, towards being MORE VALUABLE with the signature, because there aren't enough collectors of JUST movie posters. And, if someone is, are they really going to complain if A NIght at the Opera is signed by the Marx Brothers? I'm guessing not.

And, at one of these Autograph conventions (which I wrote about in the magazine), I met one of the nicest guys in the world. He reads our magazine, and he told me about buying that Wizard of Oz poster, signed by the entire cast (and even a paw print from Toto). You CAN NOT tell me, that an original Oz poster with no signatures, would be considered worth more by anyone. You just can't.

Interesting debate nonetheless.

Comment by Josh Board on November 14, 2009 at 4:48pm: Oh yeah...one more thing. I had a movie poster experience with Tony Curtis that I'll be writing about at some point. He signed my Some Like it Hot movie poster, but also added the signature of EVERY cast member. I've since seen him do that to other posters like that. Yes, it's a reproduction, and I was initially pissed, but now love the story. I will say...had he done that on an ORIGINAL Some Like it Hot poster, I might've decked him.

Comment by Stephen Duncan on November 19, 2009 at 10:44am: Great topic Scott, and great response Josh. If I owned the painting of The Last Supper, and was able to get each attendees signature (of course entirelly hypothetically speaking), I wouldn't hesitate. Nor if I had a painting of The Mona Lisa, and could get the 'ol gals signature who posed, I would. I'm a collector, not a seller, .......so anything that builds the uniqueness of my collection, count me in.
Stephen Duncan
www.rockandrollcollection.com

Comment by Josh Board on November 21, 2009 at 3:49am: Exactly, Stephen.
I will say this. THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO MY RULE, of having everyone sign. And here it is:

The AP did a story the other day about an actress from Gone With the Wind. Her name is Ann Rutherford, and she is 89 years young (shoot me...I can't believe I just used that goofy line!)

She's one of the few surviving cast members of the Civil War film. She played Scarlett O'Hara's youngest sister, Careen.

Now, if I had AN ORIGINAL movie poster from Gone With the Wind, and could get her signature on it. Nope. I would not do that. I feel that ONE SIGNATURE, from a minor character, really decreases the value of an original movie poster of something like that (what year was that? I'm guesing 1939, but not positive).

It would almost be as bad as having a few of the munchkins from Wizard of Oz, signing an original Oz poster. It's just not wise.

Especially when you can buy a DVD, and have them sign that. IT doesn't ruin the movie poster, and you still have the autograph on a piece of memorabilia.

Comment by Stephen Duncan on November 21, 2009 at 3:33pm: Great points Josh. One signature is a bit silly (so probably is just two), as is just minor cast members I currently have a 1978 Holloween movie poster signed by 8 members but not Jamie Lee Curtis. Though these 8 are basically the rest of the cast (less Donald Pleasance), without JLC on it, it just isn't a very proud piece. Needless to say, I am in persuit of JLC.

Comment