We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
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).
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Eddy on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Adams on
-
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
-
-
Hi Paul,
I know nothing about posters. I don't collect them at all.
Do you have an opinion to share?
Mark
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by marc e on
-
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
-
Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on
-
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.
-
-
My 1939 NYWF posters are in literally fresh rich and supple condition and my research indicates linen backing would indeed reduce the value.
-
-
Does it reduce the value? I’ve read that it’s reversible, unlike dry mounting and lamination.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
