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

This REALLY disturbs me....What are your thoughts?

Maybe this has been happening for a long time, but I've just recently noticed it. People are having celebrities sign a blank sheet of photo paper, then they take this signed photo paper and print a picture on it. They are then selling the photos as signed. However, I think this destroys the integrity of the autograph as the picture is printed OVER the autograph. Here's some pics:

I, for one, would feel cheated if I knew the image had been printed over the autograph.

BTW, those I've spoken to say they've had these authenticated by PSA/DNA after the picture has been printed over the signature.

What are your thoughts?

0 members like this

< Previous Post

Comment by Adam Richard Utz on January 3, 2010 at 1:34pm: Wouldnt it take away the fun of having them see they pictures they would be signing?

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 3, 2010 at 3:41pm: I don't get it. If the autograph ended up in a white area of the photo where there's no ink, that would work, but these are huge signatures. The inkjet prints on top of the paper. I'll ask PSA/DNA about it.

Comment by Eric Fields on January 3, 2010 at 5:13pm: Steve,

Yeah I would understand if they printed a pic above the signature...Who knows if the guys I talked to were legit when talking about PSA/DNA. When they are printing an entire 8x10 pic onto an 8x10 which already has the signature on it I think that's deceiving.

Comment by Josh Board on January 4, 2010 at 6:54pm: Heck, there are celebrities that don't even like signing index cards for similar reasons. They don't realize a lot of people like those because they frame easy.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 4, 2010 at 9:17pm: I asked PSA/DNA and they said that yes, they've authenticated some of these (they haven't received many), just like they would authenticate an autograph that has been lacquered or taped over as long as it's real. I didn't have a chance to ask, but I'm sure it has to be clearly visible.

This brings up an important point: authentication is only part of the process. As long as they believe the autograph is genuine and unaltered, they'll authenticate it as genuine. It's up to the buyer and seller to determine the condition and note any problems, unless you also ask for PSA/DNA to grade it.

I'm sure some people will bitch about this, but it makes sense. I used to be a coin guy, and a coin can be the worst piece of dung out there, but if it's real, it's real. The assessment of quality is a different process altogether.

Comment by Stephen Duncan on January 5, 2010 at 7:46am: While at the Nixon library in Yorba Linda a few years back, they were selling Colin Powell's autobiography that was "signed", .....or was it? The signature was actually on an oversized sticker, then stuck to one of the opening pages. I bought the book (it is his signature), but it's still in my opinion not quite a signed book. Am I right or wrong???????

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 5, 2010 at 8:01am: Steve,

Is it a bookplate (does it look like it's made for a book?) or just a sticker? If it's a bookplate, it's still a signed book, but you'd need to note it's on a bookplate. That's nowhere near as desirable as one signed directly on the title page.

Comment by Stephen Duncan on January 5, 2010 at 8:09am: It is autographed on a sticker that looks like it was from a giant roll of stickers, then pealed off. :-(

Comment by Stephen Duncan on January 5, 2010 at 8:44am: http://www.rockandrollcollection.com/catalog/index.php?act=viewProd...
Agreed Josh, idex cards are EXCELLANT items to get signed. Without index cards, I would have had lost over 200 signatures.

Comment by michael bartow on January 5, 2010 at 9:10am: Bill O'reilly did the same thing with one of his books my mother wanted. From what it look liked to me it was a Post it note size sticker that he signed. I agree she could have gone to a signing in NJ but decided it wouldn't be worth it.