We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Adding a signature to a signed photo.
Has anyone here added a clipped signature to an already signed photo to create a multi-signed piece? I am considering doing this and would like some input. Perhaps examples. Or is this not recommended. Thanks.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
So, in this example, Eric. You believe that TPG would have a problem altering the photo? What would make that different than matting it with a index card? Or cutting the original photo down to a smaller size?
What if someone got Hamill to sign it later? Would that still be an issue?
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
What would it be classified as? It is not original. Matting with an index card is very different than attaching something to an existing autograph (how attached BTW?). Cutting down the photo is different again - not as serious but always worth less than the full sized original. Signing later is different again - many multi-signed pieces are signed over time and we have seen that. I am just against alteration and I don't think it looks good. I think the Prowse would be devalued. At best an oddity, at worst some sort of "Frankengraph". Let's see what others say.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on
-
I agree with Eric, particularly regarding that piece. You should be able to add Mark Hamill’s autograph to it sometime in the near future.
-
-
This was just an example, Mike. Would you have a similar opinion on other photos done in this matter? Does it depend on who the signers are or era? What about the way I cut openings in unsigned photos for autograph matting purposes?
-
-
I would mount the autograph the same way that you mount your autographs of cut signatures with a photo of the person. That way it is not permanent.
-
-
+1 nothing permanent.
-
-
Here is another example of one I incorporated a damaged signed photo with an opening in another photo. Now imagine if this photo had another signature already on it. Would that be improper as well? And, it would be best to keep an autograph on a damaged photo intact and not create a cut for matting a better presentation?
I appreciate the input and value the insights of my fellow collectors.
-
-
Generally speaking, things look best when they are not trying to look like something else. Just a personal preference. Others opinions may vary. If I read correctly you are still cutting a photo. Would never work for me because I only collect original © photographs and not copy or reprints etc.
-
Permalink Reply by Josh Board on
-
I can't imagine ANY way this ends up looking good. I'd advise against it.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
