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

Would you (or wouldn't) restore Paul and Ringo's signatures on this item if you owned it?

This John and George signed item from 1967 was recently posted on Tracks. It is noted that Paul and Ringo also signed It, but had sadly faded. 

You can still see where both Ringo and Paul signed. Just a curiosity question for the group. Would you have this restored or keep as is? 

Views: 1333

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I owned this at one time and I never thought

to have it touched up or restored 

I liked it just the way it was in its original form 

In my opinion the only way to "restore" this is for someone to re-ink or trace over the signatures which would make the piece worth LESS as now you would not be able to see the originals (faded as they are). This is alot different than cleaning up edges or tears as I would never want something where the original signatures have been tampered with. 

A very polarized topic. I see it as not tampered with but restored!!! It’s just ink!!! Once it has faded to the point of the Paul and Ringo signatures it is worthless unsaleable if that was the plan.  Having said that restoration of felt tip signatures is much more problematic than ball point ink.  I’ve had two full sets where the felt tip signatures went from black to a rust color and I ended up selling them prior to total disappearance. Felt tip and sunshine just don’t go well together.  


Suffice to say that restored signatures won’t be for everyone but if you can get your head around it then you might get a nice set for a very reasonable price.

I agree, fab.  You also need to realize that the reason you got it for “a very reasonable price” is because a significant portion of the market is not interested (as evidenced here).  If your comfortable with that, it is ultimately your choice.

+1. I’ve always been led to believe that if you trace over a faded autograph, you have tampered with and/or altered the original thus leaving it virtually worthless.

Personally, that is how I continue to view it.  By “restoring” the autograph, you are altering it, thus rendering it uncollectible.  

If all we had to do to was trace over a faded autograph to restore its value, then concern over having autographs fade would be completely unnecessary because then at some future point, all we need to do is trace over it, and it’s all good.

While I'm fine with restoring autographs in some cases, depending on how it's done and later represented, the more I look at this the less I'd want to. If I had it I'd frame it with a photo, sheet music, or other ephemera of John and George. It's one of the boldest Lennons I can recall.

Here's an interesting one. Ink was added to the George and Ringo signatures where they were damaged by the fold. Mal Evans had signed for Paul, and the image and signature were restored where his signature intersected with Ringo's. Mal's Paul signature was replaced with an authentic one from another Fan Club card.

I definetly have a bigger issue with that. 

Me too !!! That’s an alternate fact!!!

Julien's auctioned a band-signed Beatles photo years ago that the buyer sent to Frank Caiazzo. Frank recognized one of the autographs from a single-signed photo.

Turns out it was a Frankenphoto: 3 signed photos combined into one. I doubt Julien's knew that. The buyer didn't pay for it, and I heard that he was banned after that.

That’s just messed up.  To me it’s alarming as a collector because just as people lose and misplace COAs, they will lose and misplace notifications of restoration, and these altered items will circulate as original condition pieces.  Not to mention, some people will purposely “misplace” this information.

RSS

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

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