We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Ink restoration... When is it no longer an autograph?

Here's a question that I have wondered about and might spark some discussion.

Several years ago I was interested in purchasing a 1930s era glossy signed photograph Clark Gable. With full disclosure, the collector/seller shared with me that when he had received it, the ink had faded and there had also been some apparent skipping to the writing to begin with. He told me that he had had a top paper restoration studio basically fill in with new fountain pen ink the indentations from Clark Gable's original inscription and signature. It looked aged to me, but he told me that that was part of the process the restoration used...to make it look rich and bold, but of the era.

I spoke with another collector friend of mine about it. His thought was that it may compare to a valuable old oil painting which might have cracked, chipped and then had modern conservation work done to preserve it. I do agree with that reasoning if the photograph had been conserved in other areas besides the signature area (eg. due to creasing, loss of emulsion, etc.) or had been paperbacked for stability.

I'm still on the fence about what to think about the ink being professionally filled in. What do you folks think? Is it still Gable's autograph or not?

(p.s. I ended up passing on it).

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 31, 2021 at 3:08pm

A properly restored oil painting will never be repaired to the point that the original damage is not visible. Areas of new inpainting to repair losses are purposefully left a shade lighter and filled in with a water-based reversible paint so it is obvious, if not immediately noticeable from a distance. An autograph treated the way you describe will always require verbal disclosure and one can not guarantee that in the chain of ownership. No, it is not Gable's autograph and is an item to be avoided in my opinion.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy on January 31, 2021 at 3:44pm

Good points, Eric. Maybe the most important is that once it enters the chain of ownership the reality of it as "restored" ink will most certainly be lost.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on January 31, 2021 at 3:56pm

This is a great discussion topic, and would make a great blog topic as well. I agree with Eric. I often wondered how any restoration done to the Sistine Chapel could possibly result in what was originally painted in the hand of Michelangelo. Clark Gable may have originally signed the photograph, but someone else has signed it now.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Adams on January 31, 2021 at 5:31pm

As a Asian Art dealer of more than 30 years I can inform you that any restoration can and will effectively lower its value unless it's a important imperial piece with provenance etc.

It's my opinion that any retouch, variable action from the original signature renders the entire signature valueless. It's no longer a genuine hand signed. It's now a copy.

This is different from a restoration work on say a painting. This is acceptable in the art world once it's disclosed etc. It's also common practice.

It's not as far as I know it's not the same principle with a signed letter or photograph etc. Perhaps others like Eric can expand on their own experiences and expertise here.

Of course with such integrity it all goes down the drain as it changes hands and receives new opinions and COA without them knowing it's been retouched etc.

Wouldn't there be signs of said work under a strong loupe?

Regards,

Mark

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 31, 2021 at 7:29pm

How about posters they get restored all the time.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Adams on January 31, 2021 at 7:34pm

Hi Paul,

I know nothing about posters. I don't collect them at all.

Do you have an opinion to share?

Mark

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 31, 2021 at 7:40pm

I know one of the guys here had his photos restored that was signed by Lennon and it didn't touch the sigs in anyway so it was a fantastic job.

I've seen The Beatles signed 45s , love me do be restored before and the seller disclosed it in the listing and it sold for a lot of money. I really believe that it may be an issue for a lot of signed The Beatles albums in the future esp with the original laminate , that seem to pull away from the jacket.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by marc e on January 31, 2021 at 7:59pm

i deal in posters and yes. resto does effect the value but posters also have to be graded on rarity

but i deal with one of the best resto guys in the businnes if anyone ever needs anything done frome art to concert to movie

concert posters are now selling for over 100k all the time in auction so u really need to know what your doing,its really starting to be considerd more art than concert wall stuff now allmost musuem grade investment stuff as i have had over 5 million in posters alone to retire from .if i only back then what i knew now

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 1, 2021 at 2:42pm

What do you mean when you say that it will affect the value? Restoration is intended to increase the value of the poster, but in some cases I’m not sure that it does. Some collectors won’t touch restored concert posters.

There was highly sought after Grateful Dead FD-26 Avalon Ballroom concert poster in an auction that ended yesterday. It has some restoration, but apparently was in pretty nice condition beforehand. In that case, I wonder if it would have sold for a higher price without the restoration.