Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on November 9, 2016 at 4:59pm

The signature has been laminated, which probably damaged the ink.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Saunders on November 9, 2016 at 5:37pm

Thanks!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 9, 2016 at 8:50pm

Now, that is something that should certainly be on the slab - if that even should be slabbed. Who thinks lamination with this result is NOT a serious impairment?

If this is slabbed, one must (re)consider the condition of every other slabbed item - at least realize, as many do not it seems, that genuine and problem free are two very different things and both impact "quality". Not all examples of this and that slabbed item are equal - seems obvious - this makes it moreso.

Grading is a meaningless timewaster as discussed in the earlier thread - but this is like a code 97 on a pcgs coin. It really needs to be stated. It's Genuine (like code 97), but the value will be certainly be affected. Sure, the market pays what it wants, but an individual might buy this w/o knowledge of the impairment, its impact, or the idea of "A, B and C" quality. These are very real when you go to sell.

If I authenticated and/or sold a laminated Bowie (I would never sell anything laminated - prescreening is part of what I offer) the lamination would HAVE to be part of the description and condition assigned.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on November 9, 2016 at 11:24pm

It is indeed substantial condition issue that affects the value of the signature. It shouldn’t be grouped together with signatures that haven’t been altered. If the item going to be described on the sticker, it should be fully described as a “laminated cut” rather than simply a “cut.”

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 9, 2016 at 11:35pm

I don't understand why my replies are disappearing well after posting.

"Now, that is something that should certainly be on the slab - if that even should be slabbed. Who thinks lamination with this result is NOT a serious impairment? If this is slabbed, one must (re)consider the condition of every other slabbed item -…"

2 hours ago

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on November 9, 2016 at 11:42pm

Someone should send, Jared a msg and ask him to change the description!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 9, 2016 at 11:48pm

Now, that is something that should certainly be on the slab - if that even should be slabbed. Who thinks lamination with this result is NOT a serious impairment?

If this is slabbed, one must (re)consider the condition of every other slabbed item - this is like code 97 on a PCGS slabbed coin. Genuine, yes, but altered. It should be mentioned to avoid a newer buyer from assuming it is problem free, which is not the same as genuine. This is not grading, it is an impairment serious enough to severely impact the value.

I had more to say about this, but my reply disappeared, once again, and I cant recall at this hour.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 9, 2016 at 11:58pm

Lost response found and screencapped (click to see whole post). I can't believe this was available for a momentary screencap when "backing up" to this thread in my browser:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by van den Berg on November 10, 2016 at 12:13pm

I think its because of the authentication.i believe they overwrite the autograph with invisible ink. And put it in the database. I saw one done by perry cox and the autograph did become horrible

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• image.jpg, 46 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on November 10, 2016 at 12:26pm

Here's a link to a sale of this item before it was encapsulated. The signature has the same appearance and is described as having been laminated.

http://www.gottahaverockandroll.com/john_lennon_signature-lot18492....

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 11, 2016 at 10:27am

If replies are disappearing right after you post them, that's a server/network error that kept the message from being properly saved by the site. The site was probably inaccessible for a minute or two at the same time.

The reason you could go back and capture the original message from the prior page is because your browser had the page saved in its cache for a short period. Perhaps just in the text box you typed into or perhaps as the final saved page.

Ning, the network we're on, was sold a couple of months ago and things are getting better, but there's a lot of work to be done to get it back to 100%. Please hang in there.

• ▶ Reply