We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Could a signed carbon duplicate receipt be a “real” autograph?
If I use the phrase “carbon copy” instead of “carbon duplicate,” it would seem the answer is pretty straight forward...no...because a “copy” is not original. But could a carbon copy receipt, either from an old receipt book or from a credit card transaction, be a real autograph?
My first thought was no. However, after thinking about it some more, I’m not entirely sure. Okay, back in “the old days,” when a person made a purchase using a credit card, he would sign the receipt for his purchase. In between the top copy and another copy would be a carbon paper, so that when the signer pressed on the top copy, the carbon would produce a second version of the top copy. The second version was produced directly from the manual manipulation of the signer. It wasn’t a photocopy. The “ink” on the second version was simply the carbon signature produced directly from the labor of the signer. The original ink from the pen was replaced by “carbon ink” if you will for the second version of the signature.
So my thinking now (as messed up as it may be) is that the act of signing produced two “real” autographs. Although the top copy may be more desired, perhaps the second should still constitute a real signature.
‘It also looks as though the owner of History for Sale believes that a carbon signature is also a real autograph. I had never even really considered any of this until now.
Any thoughts or opinions on this?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James on
-
Here is one autograph collector’s thought about the matter taken from another forum back in 2005:
“In one way, an autograph is the manual transfer of ink (or another writing material) to a media, such as paper. So the transfer of carbon to a piece of paper through manual means of the signer should technically be an autograph.”
Another collector said this:
”Back to the carbon copy question, carbon copy signatures are often used on official documents. Unlike a photocopy, a carbon copy is only applied by the person in question doing the signing. It is not a copy made at a later date by someone else using different means (such as a photocopy, autopen, etc.). If you asked an astronaut to sign a piece of paper for you and he set a piece of carbon paper on top of your item, pressed on top of the carbon paper with a blunt instrument, then left you with the carbon imprint, is that still his signature? After all, the astronaut personally applied that marking on your piece of paper. Does carbon transferring from a paper sheet make that signature any less valid than ink flowing directly from a pen? (Note: I am not questioning the collectability of one versus the other, just the validity of what constitutes an autograph.)”
-
Permalink Reply by Judge Nutmeg on
-
Interesting observations, James. This is something i've never considered before, but after reading your comments i feel inclined to agree with you. I think a carbon copy is just as valid as the original top copy signature.
Are carbon copies collected and are they readily available? If so, are they considerably cheaper to buy? I wouldn't have any hesitation in purchasing a John Lennon or Bruce Lee carbon autograph if the opportunity presented itself and the price was right. I could never afford one any other way, that's for certain!
-
-
Apparently these carbon autographs do have value at least with some collectors. A Prince-signed “carbon duplicate” from his production company’s receipt book sold April 8, 2019 for $500 which was the Best Offer accepted price.
Now, if this had been the top copy, it would likely have sold for at least $1500 if not $2k+ because Prince autographs are rare and hard to find.
I am of the inclination that this is a “real” autograph, though not as desirable as a “traditional” autograph, since it was, however, produced by Prince’s hand.
Here is a link to the sale:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/PRINCE-PRN-PRODUCTIONS-SIGNED-COMPANY-RECE...
-
Permalink Reply by Full Time Flipper on
-
I have a couple of Hendrix/ Noel Redding related carbon receipts from a music shop for guitars etc I consider them a viable autograph though less desirable/valuable if the items interesting and clearly described and priced accordingly I see no problem with them i think they have a place in this hobby and if you havent got 2k+ for a top copy Prince $500 is a decent price for a carbon its actually a nice item
-
-
We think alike on this subject. Yes, the top copy would be preferable, but the carbon is a decent alternative, and substantially less expensive, for an item that was produced by the hand of the celebrity.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan B on
-
For myself I'd probably avoid a carbon duplicate signature unless it was a hard to get signer and the price was reasonable.
Alan
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
Technically carbon copies of a signature should not be considered a genuine autograph in the fullest extent. Live ink is part of the authentication process.
With that said, a carbon copy would have monetary value especially on scarce signatures. Although the value would be substantially less. And, most of all, that it is represented accurately to the potential buyer.
Would I consider purchasing a carbon copy of Elvis, Neal Armstrong, John Kennedy, and the like. Absolutely if the price is right.
-
-
Do you think carbons would have more chance of being authentic? In other words, as carbon copies were used for official purposes, could there be less secretarial signings?
-
-
I assume that one would have to use the same authenticity process on carbon copies as they would on a live ink specimen. The difference would be the value of the signature. I would consider it more of a novelty item than an investment worthy item.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on
-
The logic here seems sound. Hard to argue that it is not technically an "autograph" because it was "signed" by the person in question.
But, looking at it from an authentication standpoint, I would not issue a letter of authenticity for a carbon copy signature, and I do not believe any credible authenticator would. While it may fit the technical definition of "autograph" as discussed, it does not conform to the current hobby definition of what an authentic autograph is.
Also, an item like this. it would present a major challenge. For instance, it would be difficult, if not impossible, the ascertain, speed, flow, etc.
And very easy to fake. For instance, a dishonest person could trace over an authentic autograph with carbon underneath, thus creating a new carbon copy of the original. As long as the trace wasn't glaringly obvious, how could you ever tell from the carbon? I think for this reason, "carbon" collecting will never take hold.
-
-
Indeed, it seems so obvious (now that you've pointed it out), authentic autographs would probably be much easier to replicate on carbon copies. I think you've put me off Carbons for life. Pleased i stopped before i started.
-
-
I think if you are just wanting something to display for your personal use, I don't see a problem. But, as I said earlier, the price tag should be substantially less than a live ink signature.
I don't ever see carbon copies being a serious investment to an autograph collector. Just a novelty item.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
