Posted By:
davidcycleback
Conlon sometimes initialed 'c,' and typically circled his initial or full signatue. As Mark shows, he sometimes didn't sign or initial a photo, but included notes in his distinct handwriting. His writing was usually in pencil. His stamp, which is not always present, is the strongest evidence it is a Conlon.
For fine art photo collectors, the photographer's signature is very desirable, in part because its neat to have the artist's autograph but more significantly it shows the photo was personally handled by the photographer-- significant when buying an original. In fine art, the artist's signature usually indicates the photo was personally approved as A-okay by the artist. For a fine art lithograph intended to be sold at a gallery, the artist will go through a pile of prints, only signing those that meet his approval. The ones he doesn't like he won't sign. And, of course, the last thing a famous painter does is to sign the painting. So for fine art collectors, Picasso's signature on an original, cataloged etching is important, not because it's a 'celebrity autograph,' but because it shows Picasso looked at and personally approved that very etching. Many fine art collectors aren't autograph collectors, but like their purchases to be signed. An art collector may own authentic signatures of Warhol, Dali, Picasso and Renoir, but he might consider it derogatory if you call him an autograph collector. Don't say to the collector, "That Renoir autograph is nice, but do you have any Barbara Streisand signed baseballs?"
Obviously, most UPI, AP photos and wirephotos aren't signed by the photographer, but Conlon signed and/or noted many of his photos. This writing proves the photo was personally handled by the photographer. Most stamped by him were likely personally handled by him too, but his authentic handwriting is the ultimate proof.