Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 14, 2016 at 10:39pm

I'm just going to talk about the image. Is that an original print vintage or a modern print? Reprint by artist - stamped? Or unauthorized copy? Single or double weight paper? I think these things matter.

Can one say what that signature is worth right now? I found a similar well known photographer who was willing to make a custom large heavyweight print off his original negative to match my same-image vintage photographic print, sign it with the original date and venue from the 70's and then date it 1/16 - for $20. Granted, I already have a vintage '76 signature. I would wait a while before buying anything large right now - everything is up in the air. Ticket stubs have asking prices that exceeded what his signature was. Not a time to buy, generally speaking, in my opinion. Many seem rushing to get any example without regard to what was signed. This photo is a classic Diamond Dogs/Halloween Jack photo. Hopefully, it is a proper licensed print by the photographer and not from a copy neg. It looks very good, not great, but that's from a photo or scan. It seems to have been cropped if that is all of it so perhaps not original/by the photographer? I don't know to what extent that matters to what % of collectors.  

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris on January 14, 2016 at 10:45pm

It's an original print from Terry O'Neill. I was told the photograph is worth money itself. It comes with PSA/DNA authentication. Does that help? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 14, 2016 at 11:23pm

Does the PSA/DNA sticker indicate an original print? The original O'Neil seems cropped here? I believe a true original to be quite valuable. Is this heavyweight stock, stamped, etc? I am just asking how you know it is an original O'Neil print as that would represent a good % of the value here IMO. The signature is not a blazing example IMO.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 15, 2016 at 1:35am

Hello again,

I found some examples of the original 1974 photograph - this image you linked to, even if not all shown, is measured at 11x14. That side to side ratio indicates the eBay image has been severely cropped from the original intentions of O'Neill. Bowie's fingers and feet are missing as well as the space around and above him. If it is an original O'Neill, unless cropped and printed by O'Neill or under his supervision (doubtful to me anyway), that's a very big negative in my book and a condition problem too. If it is not an original O'Neill print, then this is just overpriced IMHO - it would be a copy. I am just looking but his genuine prints seem to come no smaller than 16".

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 15, 2016 at 2:01am

Hello again Chris,

I went to look at something and ran out of time to amend/add to my post. What potentially is left is an unsigned/unmarked copy photo noticeably cropped into a horizontal, from nearly a square, with a not-very-compelling signature on it. $1300? I bet you can do better?

Perhaps some others will chime in with different opinions and more insight.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 15, 2016 at 5:53pm

Hello again,

I am seeing this same image same exact crop sold with no mention of the photographer, so I am thinking these are not O'Neill's authorized work but knockoffs as suspected. I can not find these prints by O'Neill in 8x10 or 11x14 - just the nearly square original format. What did the seller of the item you were looking at say with regard to the authorship of that print you were looking at?

Eric

• ▶ Reply