A friend of mine, who works at the art gallery that framed my Horner Composite, sent a gentleman my way for advice on restoring some autographs. I am not an autograph expert but said I thought darkening the signatures would decrease their value substantially. I told him I thought that touching up a photo or check probably wouldn't be too bad depending on what is done. I also told him I would ask some friends of mine on a chat board that I frequent. So here is the unabridged question. ...I did mention that getting them authenticated would be imperative if he ever wanted to sell them....


"Thanks for your time and introduction to the perils of autograph restoration. Apparently theres more to it than the ordinary Joe would think. I now understand that the process ordinarily used to restore photos doesnt necessarily bring along improvement to the autograph. Actually, it probably works against it. Ill put the Windex and the Sharpie back in the drawer.

What I have is not of any particular value. I have a picture of some little leaguer type kid (circa 1930s) autographed by Honus Wagner. Doesnt rise to the level of a T-206 card but it is nicely matted and framed along with a small print of Honus and sometimes impresses those that are easily impressed. Ditto for a Ty Cobb signed check, also framed and matted with a picture of Ty. Im not a hardcore collector and am not really trying to maximize value as much as I am simply trying to preserve the aesthetic of the autographs. That being said, I dont want to destroy value either, to extent any exists. I cant imagine theres a whole lot there so the aesthetic maybe carries a bit more weight. These are just trinket conversation pieces.

I also have a signed pics by Feller, Spahn, Mantle, Gehrig, Gibson, DiMaggio, Musial, Dean which are all in great shape. The two exceptions above really stand out as having faded (signatures) hence my interest in bringing them back if can be done in some relatively simple low tech fashion.

Any additional insight would be greatly appreciated."

No way.

I sort of thought that was the case. I appreciate your succinctness too. Could you elaborate just a little, pretty please? My guess is that touching up the autographs with anything would greatly reduce their value but the pieces they are on could be cleaned up a bit, if needed. I know my composite (I keep referring to)was deacidified and very minorly touched up in a handful of areas before I got it. I would surmise it helped the long term value, in that it will weather the elements better, as well as it helps the present day aesthetics. regards

There is a great difference between photo or art restoration and autograph "restoration".

Obviously, "restoration" is commonly accepted in many fields, but this acceptance will always be the exact opposite in all matters dealing with handwriting and signatures. If some collectors choose to restore broken edges of a signed photograph, I personally see nothing wrong with that. As to "cleaning around a signature", think of the added price a piece of furniture exhibiting original patina brings on the open market. Outside of occasionally breaking up multi-signed pieces, I leave all my material the way I found it. I do know a few historical manuscript dealers who employ a non-invasive form of cursory surface cleaning. Said restorative work should of course be described if the piece is to be offered for sale at a later time. To me, the auction market will dictate if the value of such an item is heightened by such work.



As far as doing anything to touch up the actual autograph, my "No way" still stands!

If you restore a player's signature too much, it may not be considered the player's signature anymore. The appeal of Mickey Mantle's signature is the ink you are looking at was placed there by Mickey Mantle. Covering it with new ink literally hides Mickey's writing.

As a collector (and speaking from a collector's perspective) I would NEVER buy a retouched or traced autograph. It would hold "zero" appeal to me. I would rather have a vintage original signature that grades a "1" than a restored signature that grades a "10".

Even beyond autographs, I believe that vintage collectibles should remain in their original state. The only restoration that I personally find acceptable is on Posters, Broadsides, Ad Signs and related artwork- and that would be the type of restoration that prevents condition from worsening (ie decay from water damage, edge tears extending, etc.) And even that type of restoration must be fully disclosed by the seller or auction house, IMO.

To expand on what Jody said: "absolutely no way".
==

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

Thanks guys....I feel what I told the gentleman in our first conversation was correct. Don't touch the autographs and preferrably don't touch anything....but the minor restoring/cleaning of the other items might not be too bad. Had my composite photo not been cleaned before I got it I think I would have still got it done.....with all I know today. It wasn't disclosed to me when I bought it and I did in fact get a very small partial refund when it was found out...The best restoration is obviously none but there are circumstances when it can actually be done and not hurt too much. I know my composite will now stand the test of time much better since it was professionally cleaned. The few tiny touch ups are just that, very tiny. SO I am very happy with it. As for these autograph pieces this gentleman has I think the answer is obvious and thanks again!! regards

I'd suggest that he make high quality copies of the items, and uses the sharpie on the copies to show to his friends.

An answer is with autographs there are dark signatures and there are light signatues, and that's the way it is.