Press photos - to sign or not to sign

[Vintage Yankee]

EdwardLawrence.jpg

Obviously many of the press photos we on the board collect are of players no longer with us. But in cases where the subjects are still with us, how do fellow board members feel about having vintage photos signed today? Do you prefer to leave them in their original state, or feel that an added signature enhances the overall appeal of a photo? Please feel free to share some sample photos with your post!

Regards,

R.J.

[Scott Garner]

R.J.-
That's a great question! I've pondered that questions like these myself at times and I can tell you that there is no right or wrong answer.
Your photo that you posted is an awesome image and I don't know if I would have that one signed. I love autographs, but my own bias is that I don't love having a vintage item signed with a modern signature. I would consider framing it with a vintage signed album page/cut/index card/GPC of the two players, FWIW. I'm interested to hear how other board members weigh in on this topic.

Good collecting!

[Writehooks]

I pondered this question when I first started taking vintage wire photos to the Boxing Hall of Fame induction weekend several years ago. My solution was to make glossy copies of vintage photos and have the fighters sign the copies. That way, you still get a signature on a cool picture ... and you also keep the original in "unspoiled" condition. An added bonus was that when the old fighters were asked to sign, they inevitably had a neat story to tell about what was depicted in the photo. Roberto Duran even asked for a half-dozen copies of an shot of him pummeling Kenny Buchanan ...

[Frank A]

I've had several of them signed. I find that the players love signing them and always have a story about them or of something like them. Interesting for both parties. Frank

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Writehooks

My solution was to make glossy copies of vintage photos and have the fighters sign the copies. That way, you still get a signature on a cool picture ... and you also keep the original in "unspoiled" condition.

Excellent suggestion.

[drc]

As a photograph historian, I don't have an issue with them being signed. Clearly, I wouldn't want Pete Rose to sign an 1870s cabinet card, but Sandy Koufax signing a 1960s AP photo sound cool.

This doesn't mean I would chose to have a photo I owned signed or that I think they SHOULD be signed, but I can see the merits in someone going that route. I purchased a few 1940s news photos that were already autographed in a Gaynor auction-- Boo Ferris.


I also won an original 1910s Charles Conlon photo of Joe Wood, more modern signed by Wood on the front and Conlon on the back. Wood personalized it to the famous autograph collector Jeffrey Morey. One of my favorite autographs. The seller, a well known and respected autograph dealer, sold it simply as a Wood autograph, unaware of the significance (and value) of the Conlon stamp on back. The Conlon stamp was worth more than the Wood autograph.

[novakjr]

I'd get something else signed...Probably a ball. Then you'll have 2 great pieces. But then again I'm a ball collector myself.

Other than that, I like Scott Garner's idea of something that can be matted and displayed with the photo. Overall I think Writehook's idea to make a glossy copy of the photo is probably my favorite suggestion..