What's new in your collection?

How about an ongoing thread to highlight the new additions to your collection?

Whether it's a through-the-mail freebie or a big buck acquisition... it's all good. Show us what you got!

Views: 256822

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo 4 hours ago

+1. I came up with "contemporary pastiche" - either, were they implemented - heading in the right direction. I am thinking of those recently created "cut cards" like my sold Lugosi with the added new photo etc. A vintage album page with ink sig and typical pasted photo could/would be a "Composite" no? The things we are talking about are recent and trying to be something they simply are not. The motive/intent seems clear to me and I don't like it.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo 4 hours ago

"I wish the industry/hobby would agree on - and consistently use - a term for these fantasies/concoctions."

Me too. But, that would benefit US. I don't see that as part of their business model. They are, on occasion, slabbing preprints, secretarials and forgeries. Facts pages are corrupted to varying degrees. I know one that has more forgeries than authentics. Some names more than others. Databases are not updated etc. Emails are ignored in most cases. Look at the "Macca" 1$ bill - 3 examples (was it 4?) with the same signature and different serial numbers. 

Permalink Reply by JMS1223 4 hours ago

I just got reminded of a cut signature card that contained a SECRETARIAL example of Helen Keller’s signature. It came from one of those fundraising letters that were known for having secretarial signatures. It looked fake too...all the letters neat and close together. Sadly Topps said it was authentic on the back of the card and it sold for $5000 on eBay a year or two ago. An authentic Helen Keller cut signature is usually worth around $500 in comparison— so why spend 10x as much on a fake one!? 😩 

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 3 hours ago

It’s hard to tell based on that image, but I found an earlier one.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo 3 hours ago

Ouch. It is indeed the same. Mark, your eye and memory and remarkable.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo 15 hours ago

We talked about this practice a while ago with a Trump magazine I think and something else. I don't feel comfortable with these subsequent or post-signature creations. "Sheet music" or "Print"...sloppy IMO. 

Permalink Reply by eddy 6 hours ago

Yes, I remember that Trump autograph discussion. It would seem like the description identification should be what the signer actually signed (at the time of the signing).   

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo 5 hours ago

Yes. It speaks, intentionally or not, the the intent of the creator. That title should go to the original signer alone. Terminology should be standardized and clear. What would a noce interpret from "Authentic Auto/Print" or whatever..."Sheet Music"...

It muddies things. 

RSS

© 2026   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

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