David, I totally agree. It's part of the story and the story adds
historical value at least. Of course it depends on the story how much. A
signing session with sharpie for which the owner of the signature stood
in line to pay the 25 bucks is less of a story than the one of a fan who
left his/her/they spouse, or took six months leave to meet the hero in
person.
I have several items which are signed for an old friend of mine from
which I bought a lot of items. To quote the description on my site
www.movie-ink.com:
I have an original poster for ERASERHEAD signed by director DAVID LYNCH
and lead actor JACK NANCE. The inscription at the top with Jack Nance's
signature reads "To Thijs from Henry Spencer. Love To All Rotterdam",
Lynch added to his signature in the collar "1978".
Here's the story: Thijs Ockersen was a Dutch journalist and film event
organizer. In 1978 he was in California. One of his tasks there was to
acquire movies for screening at the International Rotterdam Film
Festival. ERASERHEAD was shown at a few late evening dates for promotion
of the film. Ockersen attended a screening and got into contact with
both Nance (who played HENRY SPENCER of course) and Lynch. He got a
poster that both signed with the expectation that the movie would screen
at the IFFR as Ockersen would pitch the movie. This is the meaning of
the inscription Love To All Rotterdam". In the end it did not show as
the festival's director HUUB BALS saw no appeal in ERASERHEAD and
ultimately did not buy it.....
Best,
Wim
On 2024-02-22 01:40, David Kusumoto wrote:
This debate has been going on for years and people remain split on
it. In fact, more recently there was this raging debate on a fan site
about removing personalization from a genuine signature from a Beatle.
My thoughts, then vs. now, have changed.
I used to think personalization ruins a book, poster, photograph,
whatever. I no longer do and prefer it because:
1) The more strokes of a pen, the easier it is for authenticators to
separate what's genuine vs. what's a forgery.
2) Collectors can still prefer NO personalization - but it gets
complicated when it's done by a celebrity who is no longer alive.
Recently, a collector wanted opinions about removing personalization
from an item signed by John Lennon. The signature was authenticated
by two different organizations - and the collector said seeing
"personalization" to another person not sharing his name - really
bugged the crap out of him.
Where I fall on this is simple. I would NEVER want to erase a single
pen stroke done by a legendary figure. Same with authors. I prefer
personalization from an author like Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald,
Didion, E.B. White, Virginia Woolf, etc. I don't care if the
personalization is for a random fan vs. for someone who was famous,
the latter of course would enhance value. To me, it represents the
celebrity taking an extra few seconds to write something besides his /
her name. I myself would never erase personalization from even a
single-genre celebrity like Mark Hamill, who is notorious about
publicly calling out fakes of his own signature. Separate from
signatures, restoration of paper does impact the perception of value,
e.g., sometimes a poster needs it and the value goes up or down or
stays the same. In the comic book world, though, restoration does
have devastating impact on value.
Of course, right now people want to remove things like, "Best of luck
William, All the Best! Paul McCartney" - if they're not named William.
They're look at personalization as hurting market value. Probably.
But when someone like McCartney eventually passes - and the world
mourns him - the perception of market value with or without
personalization DOES shift. Again, speaking for myself, I would never
want to remove anything signed by such a person. That's like wanting
a portion of Albert Einstein's writing removed because it includes
something like, "You're a smart young man, Herbert! Good luck! A.
Einstein." -d.
-------------------------
From: MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> on behalf of Glenn
Taranto <exit82afi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 1:41 PM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Does This Poster Restoration Work Impact Value?
Interesting topic, Scott. I have always been under the impression
that a personalized autograph was more likely to be authentic.
I had Robert Dix sign a lobby card the first time I met him. Instead
of Glenn he signed it to STAN! I was too polite to correct him or do
anything about it. It bothered me every time I looked at it. I
eventually sold it. It wasn't worth much at all but I just couldn't
look at it. Silly I guess but I'm not Stan and never have been!
Robert and I later became good friends and I have his signature on
things that are more personal to me than a lobby card so it's all
good.
Glenn
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 4:05 PM Scott Burns <sbu...@columbus.rr.com>
wrote:
Interesting video from Fourth Cone Restoration on YouTube where a
client wanted “Best to Harold” removed from a “Star Wars”
Topps poster, autographed by Mark Hamill. Does this kind of
restoration make any difference in the value of the poster? This
being a Topps poster, I’m not sure how much value there was to
begin with, but a Hamill autograph would certainly boost the value.
Opinions?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mfK1nW-ovFY?feature=share
Scott
MoPo List Owner
-------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
