Wondering how the community feels about the value of getting older original Type 1 black and white phots signed.
Would the autograph increase the value of the photo, or would it be better to keep them unsigned?
Thanks for any thoughts or opinions!
A vintage photo itself unsigned is very collectible and should probably stay that way due to there being collectors of vintage photos. They do not care about autographs for the most part. If you like a vintage photo that you want signed, you could easily get a modern reprint photo signed instead which is what autograph collectors want. Or display vintage photo with signed card.
I once saw a prop signed but because it was signed it made it less desirable to prop collectors. As a result it was worth much less. I think vintage photos would be similar.
If the photo itself is valuable I would not advise changing it in any way. Photo collectors want pristine photos. Any damage lowers the value substantially.
Not sure what a "Type 1" photo is. As mentioned above, if the photo has specific value as an original photo then tread carefully. Otherwise, vintage (but not valuable) photos can be great vehicles for signatures.
Type I – A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken). Type II – A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).
Photograph Authentication Process
In any case, the advice from people above probably still applies.
There are some exceptions...
I used to get what must be Type 1 photos from the White House and then when the president left office I got them signed. I am sure on that case the value went up.
The "Type I" and "Type II" designations are something I never heard of . They seem very arbitrary. I wouldn't place much importance in such designations.