We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Aesthetically pleasing or keeping it original? What's your preference?
There are times I struggle with removing a pleasing signature from a less than desirable format. For instance, a beautiful signature on a less than perfect photo. Does it make sense to crop the signature and create a stunning piece or would that be considered destructive? Does it matter? Would like to hear other thoughts on historical versus aesthetic value. Is it simply to the eye of the beholder?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on
-
Normally I have always been one to leave it be. I would look for alternatives such as if possible can the photograph be over laid with a better photograph then matted leaving the original intact. That is certainly desirable when dealing with inscriptions on index cards and album pages. I think it would also depend on is this a living person like Harrison Ford for whom there are 1000s available or Bela Lugosi for whom there is a strictly limited number left. I would feel less horrific about a Harrison Ford autograph cut from a bad picture than that of Bela Lugosi. I have always felt a less desirable photograph is better than a cut. If there is a photograph and emulsion stuck and the face is missing or damaged to a great degree then that might be a case. Ultimately it is up to the owner but from some of the atrocities I have seen committed to make something "artistic" I am still very conservative when it comes to messing around with the original.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
I agree it is usually better to leave the piece in original form although there are some cases where an actor/musician is so strongly associated with a particular role that other formats are not wanted.
Here is an example. The Jimmy Page signed insert originally issued with a Chris Farlowe album. Virtually everyone who purchased this done so based on Jimmy's autograph. Would it make sense to cut that and mat with a photo?
-
-
Here is another example. A Sean Connery signature on a less desirable role being cut to mat with a James Bond or Indy Jones piece. Signed photos are not like documents. But would this be considered degrading the original intent?
-
Permalink Reply by marc e on
-
I would never ciut a autograph.it devalues it. always leave it in its original form.u matt around it but never touch it
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
I'm with John, matt around it and make sure the glass, matt and backing are inert and protective.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
I'm just a curator. Even a Connery signed Zardoz photo...someone somewhere wants it (I know, I saw some of it). We just saw an absurd Harrison cut SP.
This is like removing dedications to me. Less is less. Signed photos are not like documents - another animal agreed - and both deserve to live.
-
-
Some of the items - perhaps just should not be collected in the first place. If you don't like the photo, role or condition, pass, and leave it for another - don't start chopping things up IMO. Patience pays.
-
Permalink Reply by goodcat on
-
This is a very interesting topic and have found myself thinking the same.
I have come across a few pieces to purchase where I liked the sig but not the item it's on.
I personally decided that it would be destructive to cut the signature so I passed on each item with these traits.
PS... I've already seen a slabbed Jimmy Page sig from that LP sleeve and thought it was terrible.
-
-
I have seen some slabs that were authenticated to fool people. For instance, someone cut a Shirley Temple Black felt tip signature and clipped the "Black" off. Then had it authenticated. That crosses the line, IMO.
-
-
Indeed
Messing with (cutting out) the signature or the dedications/inscriptions is blasphemy.
Some items can be altered to appear different just by framing it and covering up the unwanted parts. I'm OK with this procedure.
I also despise cut signatures that have been cropped so close to the ink and or in an unappealing pattern. I admit I did this sort of thing when I started collecting around 8 years old, But even then I didn't like the appearance. I did it to paste into an autograph book. I had no idea what I was doing back then haha Live and learn
-
Permalink Reply by Zoe on
-
Personally, I’d keep original as is, matt the area if needs be with a better item, but protect the original piece the signature is on.
preservation is key, presentation optional.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
