There's a great candid photo of FDR on eBay currently that is signed, but the signature is faded. I usually don't even consider a faded-signature piece, but the image of FDR is one-of-a-kind and really captures FDR in a rare unaffected casualness.
The FDR image aside, I'd like to know forum members' opinions about faded signatures.
Tags:
The resale value is almost non existent. I found out the hard way.
if you love it and are okay with it, go for it. But it will be hard to sell.
I don’t know your budget but that seems low enough to buy it if you like the image. I’d go for it.
I was thinking something similar. That's an unpublished candid shot of FDR, which I felt made it worth the price.
That changes everything, yes. Surprising this was not mentioned by the dealer.
I'm not so sure that's fading so much as uneven ink adhesion. The description says it's a glossy photo, which could sometimes be problematic for dip and fountain pens.
In general I am against badly faded signatures, but this might be a little different. The lightness is not even, which makes me think it might just be irregular ink adhesion.
It still has issues, but not necessarily damage. The other factors, such as it being an uncommon or unique image, might carry more weight as a result.
Are you sure that this is an unpublished candid shot? It doesn't look all that candid to me. As JK says, I'm not sure that the autograph is really faded but its is hard to tell without seeing it in person.
"As JK says, I'm not sure that the autograph is really faded but its is hard to tell without seeing it in person."
+1
Google image search and Tin Eye reveal nothing for this image. I wonder if it is trimmed. That is possibly three things the auctioneer should have mentioned IMHO. Image, ink adhesion and possible trim.
It never occurred to me the photo might be trimmed. thanks for pointing that out. BTW, what is Tin Eye?
© 2025 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service