OA.. To have signed or not - Which is preferred?

[micmack]

I asked this on the CAF Forum but no one is responding so I'll try here. Is it better to have a page of OA signed (outside the panels on the bottom) by the artist(s) than not to be signed? I ask this because I may have a chance to have a large portion of my stuff signed...

Thanks.

[Solar]

I usually dont care either way, unless the signature is obtrusive, in which case, it's a negative. If the artist doesn't sign often or is deceased, it could be a positive.

[rob_react]

I would much rather have signed pieces AS LONG AS IT'S OUTSIDE THE IMAGE AREA. I tripleplushate when people sign in the image area.

[Reno McCoy]

There one of a kind pieces, so it really shouldn't matter in terms of resale. However, I think it'd be way cool to have at least some of the pieces signed. I don't own a single piece of OA that isn't signed.

[RDK]

I'd prefer it signed - it is original (and arguably fine) art after all. Outside the panel borders would be preferable as well, though Neal Adams was "forced" to sign my GL page at the bottom of an inside panel since someone years ago trimmed the page too close to the border. Still, I wanted it signed.

[RDK]

This is what I'm talking about.

 

I really didn't want him to sign inside the image area, but other than having Neal sign on the back I really didn't have much choice. I really prefer having the sig to not having it at all.

[Solar]

Wow, that's hideous.

 

 

 

Wanna sell it

[Thomas]

I absolutely hate it when they sign inside the image area. There's a few John Byrne pages I've wanted but he seems to have this really bad habit of doing that to his pages.

 

I like when they're signed on the outside area though.

 

It doesn't matter to me personally value wise though. I wouldn't pay more or less if someone signed the page or not.

 

Speaking of this though, I want to get John Byrne to personalize a page to me and in order to make a note or something he'll need to write in the image area. I guess eventually I'll buy a cheaper piece that I don't mind disfiguring.

[mister_not_so_nice]

My thoughts on the SUBJECT

[Professor66]

I have a page from Ult. Spidey and i was thinking about having Bagely sign it but to me the art speaks for itself no need for his sig. I was gonna bring it to the NY Con in Feb but i said forget it.

[mrpunch0]

I like to get my art signed but don't think it affects the value either way ... UNLESS

 

A) It's signed on the image (I've seen some signed in metallic ink over heavy black areas ... not good.

 

or B) It's signed "TO GEORGE ..." and since my name isn't George ...

 

I've had chances to buy nice pages with both of these types of sigs on them and passed on them both.

[scourge456789-migration]

 

Great cover. Would look better without the sig though.

[Reno McCoy]

I think that Romita sig was in the final printed copy, though. So in a way, that's a different thing altogether.

[*paull*]

I prefer discreet, small signatures outside the image area. One of my pieces is signed in pencil outside the border, and that's fine by me. I think I prefer pencil because it's doesn't detract from the inked image.

[clickhere-migration]

How HORRIBLE is this signature!

[heartened]

As do others, I like having the art signed in the border, especially if I'm the one who got it signed! I do not like art signed in the image area, and do feel that it may hurt the value. If subtle, it doesn't. But, larger signatures in the image, especially if done in marker (like McFarlane did), definitely are a detractor and may hurt you sell a piece down the line.

[*paull*]

Hari, what do you think about an artist signing in pencil?

[Mister Trent]

How HORRIBLE is this signature!

 

Pretty damned horible!

 

I notice, with some artists, they've put a lot of time, effort and skill into giving the artwork their best shot - but when it comes to signing a piece, they just dash out an illegible scrawl.

 

Interesting juxtaposition . . .

[heartened]

Hari, what do you think about an artist signing in pencil?

 

I've never thought about that. I see no problem with actual ink, as long as it's a fine line, and the signature is small, on the border. Pencil is fine, but I don't see any problem with a permanent signature, as long as it's done on the border. In fact, in the future, it may help to determine authenticity to have a signature there. We are fortunate that most of the artists we collect are still with us, but once they have passed authenticity may become a real issue. I haven't personally sought out artists to get their signature, but I certainly will bring my art to conventions to get them signed if the artist is a guest. It also shows the artist the appreciation you have towards his work, and I'm sure the artist gets a real kick out of seeing art he may not have seen in decades!

[*paull*]

Has anyone encountered a situation where the artist was angry about seeing a piece again that they believed had been withheld from them by the publisher?