Press photos - to sign or not to sign

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by 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 ...

Being a photograph collector, I almost always value the content of the photo over the signature on it. So I completely concur with both of these suggestions.

Originally Posted by MacDice

Do whatever makes you happy. Collect things that have value to you not what you think will have value in the future if you sell it. To me the hobby is about personal enjoyment not how much of a profit you can get from it down the line.

But Mike's comment is absolutely spot-on. Stick to his words and you can't go wrong!