To Alter, or Not to Alter?

[GreatEscape]

I'd vote to leave it alone as well, if for no other reason that it was written by Tuska. It's also discrete without distracting from the wonderful art.

 

I would even argue that value is enhanced by permitting a future owner to decide whether to remove the inscription or not. My

[dgillock]

I'd vote to leave it alone as well, if for no other reason that it was written by Tuska. It's also discrete without distracting from the wonderful art.

 

I would even argue that value is enhanced by permitting a future owner to decide whether to remove the inscription or not. My

 

I'm with Dino on this one. Unless it really bothers you, leave it. If you ever decide to sell the piece, the "Larry" should not devalue it in the mind of a buyer as they can always erase it themselves.

[Marwai]

If you are framing it, can you ask the framer to mat over it? Then stick a Marvel logo over that section of the mat.

[delekkerste]

I'd vote to leave it alone as well, if for no other reason that it was written by Tuska. It's also discrete without distracting from the wonderful art.

 

I would even argue that value is enhanced by permitting a future owner to decide whether to remove the inscription or not. My

 

I would argue that value is enhanced by the additional writing and link to provenance, much as a personally inscribed signed book is worth MORE than one where the author merely signed his or her name.

[Garf]

Just erase the characters you don't like.

 

 

[fmaz]

It's away to the framer, left totally as is! Well, other than the fact that I added the little dot eyeballs that spider-man originally had and I drew in the iron man armor nose he once had. Didn't bother asking about those changes. Just assumed there'd have been universal consent.

[hdiddy8706]

i would leave it

[kbmcvay]

It's away to the framer, left totally as is! Well, other than the fact that I added the little dot eyeballs that spider-man originally had and I drew in the iron man armor nose he once had. Didn't bother asking about those changes. Just assumed there'd have been universal consent.

 

I hope you are joking.

[drdroom]

I would for sure draw in the underside of Iron Man's arm and put some shadows on DD's chest.

[fmaz]

It's away to the framer, left totally as is! Well, other than the fact that I added the little dot eyeballs that spider-man originally had and I drew in the iron man armor nose he once had. Didn't bother asking about those changes. Just assumed there'd have been universal consent.

 

I hope you are joking.

 

Of course!

[kav]

never erase this type stuff. granted that forgeries exist, the more written words the easier it is to verify.

[J.Sid]

Interesting!

[Unca Ben]

Leave it as is.

And yeah, that piece is great, congratulations!

[kbmcvay]

It's away to the framer, left totally as is! Well, other than the fact that I added the little dot eyeballs that spider-man originally had and I drew in the iron man armor nose he once had. Didn't bother asking about those changes. Just assumed there'd have been universal consent.

 

I hope you are joking.

 

Of course!

 

Glad to hear it. We live in a world where people buy Kirby pencils and then ink over them and where people buy John Byrne Uncanny splashes and color them in with a crayon. You never know what people are gong to do.

[fmaz]

It's away to the framer, left totally as is! Well, other than the fact that I added the little dot eyeballs that spider-man originally had and I drew in the iron man armor nose he once had. Didn't bother asking about those changes. Just assumed there'd have been universal consent.

 

I hope you are joking.

 

Of course!

 

Glad to hear it. We live in a world where people buy Kirby pencils and then ink over them and where people buy John Byrne Uncanny splashes and color them in with a crayon. You never know what people are gong to do.

 

Yeah. It's sad that anyone would even think I wasn't kidding? But I've seen some of those self colored things on CAF. In fact, I think I read an article once that it's one of the reason Erik Larsen hates doing convention sketches ... because he's seen what's become of them by amateur inkers and colorists, etc.

 

So yeah, this piece went to the framers, untouched. :-)

[ImageFan-migration]

Let us say you are marrying a beautiful woman. Would you rather she have the name of her ex-boyfriend grace her arm or come without ink?

 

In any circumstance, I prefer absence of personalizations unless you are the first owner of an item and intend to take it to your grave. Obviously, there are numerous old pieces that already come personalized and it does not make much sense to alter the art in those situations.

[Mighty Hal]

Let us say you are marrying a beautiful woman. Would you rather she have the name of her ex-boyfriend grace her arm or come without ink?

 

With or without the ink, you've still got a beautiful woman!

[kav]

Let us say you are marrying a beautiful woman. Would you rather she have the name of her ex-boyfriend grace her arm or come without ink?

 

In any circumstance, I prefer absence of personalizations unless you are the first owner of an item and intend to take it to your grave. Obviously, there are numerous old pieces that already come personalized and it does not make much sense to alter the art in those situations.

 

well removing the 'for sam with best wishes' from a schulz sketch could mean the difference between it being determined to be real and 'possible forgery'.

that handwriting it part of the provenance and thus adds value.

not to mention when people see erasure marks red flags start shooting up like crazy.

I would never buy an original pencil drawing with any kind of erasure marks.

[malvin]

 

well removing the 'for sam with best wishes' from a schulz sketch could mean the difference between it being determined to be real and 'possible forgery'.

that handwriting it part of the provenance and thus adds value.

not to mention when people see erasure marks red flags start shooting up like crazy.

I would never buy an original pencil drawing with any kind of erasure marks.

 

hmm.. in my opinion, if an expert thinks a page ifs fake only because the personalization was erased, then the expert is not much of an expert.

 

as well, there is a reason why artists work in pencil, so they can erase! I think a good portion of "authentic" original pencil pieces have some sort of erasing done by the artist.

 

Malvin

[Brian Peck]

Signatures mean nothing in authenticating original art, it can be helpful but having it or not doesn't really matter. in fact the wrong signature can effect how a piece is sold. This happened with Thor #180 by John Buscema pencils (Marie Severin did the background figures) and Joe Sinnott inks. At one point someone asked Neal Adams who drew the interiors to signed the original cover which he did. Even though Neal never contributed to the cover either pencil or inks.

After it changed hands a original art dealer sold the cover as penciled by Neal Adams and inks by Joe Sinnott. The cover even looked like Neal's art but some thought it was pencils by Neal not John Buscema the true penciler. Had to ask the inker Joe Sinnott who confirmed John penciled the cover with background figures by Marie.

So a signature can sometimes be bad for a piece of art.