The Corroseum forum (new design under construction)

Do you think an Autograph increases the value of a rare record?

Or is this only "Writing on cover" to you?


I think this was discussed here before in another tread a year or so ago but I just can't remember.

this reminds me of how i got my taist of iron copy from Jan S few years back,he sold it to me for 30 euro i think cos it had 'writing on the back' turns out it was autographed personally to some friend of the guitar player.Now its on his list for 280 e i think haha.
since i bothered to post,it just ruins the cover for me.

If the signing belongs to me, I like it. I dont buy already signed records, because it has no meaning and would indeed be like a WOC to me.
Signings should be a souvenir linked to a little personal story with the band or so. Attended the show, shared a few beer, got the stuff signed, nice guys, etc.

Edit: For me signings have no money value, more an ideal value that cant be measured

I'd rather have my autographs on the insert, or on a empty space on the back. I also don't think it adds that much to the value, maybe a few dollars if there's a deceased bandmember's autograph among them. I only value autographed copies if it's been written on when I bought it, not years ago for someone else. I also prefer personal autographs, it at least increases it in personal value.

it turns out that my copy of BITCH "Damnation Alley is signed by everyone on the back cover, I heard they signed about 100 copies back then. But I put more value on this record because the person it is signed to is the cover artist.

This is called "Associational value" in the book collecting world, and in the case of book, an "associated" copy, if it is the right person,can add a lot of value to it. But I guess maybe in records no one really cares.

But if I get a record signed by a band, to me personally, there is a good memory with that.

Autographs do not increase nor decrease the value for me.

I hate autographs on the cover...

Autographs do not mean shit to me.

In fact, I avoid autographed copies when purchasing anything because it's no longer in the original, intended state.

wouldn't buy an autographed copy but got some bands to autograph items for me when I sent them copies of my zine with interviews with them in it, weird but there you go... Personal value only, jack shit to someone else.

of course I like the super high price I paid for that Bitch record: $3.25.......

i have lots and lots of signed stuff.... one of my best is the personalised christmas tree from some TX mazterz( when richards had another boring day in his pressing plant i guess)....not only it' s great but's also friendly for the environment ,heheheh......

Autographs annoys the crap out of me when they're all over the front cover, so it's rather a turn-off than an attraction when it comes to purchasing used items.

Of course, I do appreciate the sentimental value of any autograph -but that only applies when I've collected it myself!

Chiroptera wrote:Autographs annoys the crap out of me when they're all over the front cover, so it's rather a turn-off than an attraction when it comes to purchasing used items.

Of course, I do appreciate the sentimental value of any autograph -but that only applies when I've collected it myself!

I aggree with this 100%

In some of the other cases presented here:

To me the Bitch record: I have seen 20-25 copies all signed on back in marker. This doesn't change a $15-20 records value for me (back cover, cheap record)

BUT is you had them on the front I think it takes away 10-20% of the value

Also I think a 100-200 collectable Private LP ANY autograph (Front or back) takes away from the value.

BUT YES if you personally got it signed there is a lot of personal value in it. Completely understood, But again if you go to sell that item someday dont expect to get paid more because of the Autograph. Thats for PRIVATES as ther is a small community for these.

If your talking Mega Group major label (AC/DC, Sabbath, Zep......) this changes since the group of buyers gets a lot larger

I didn't mean to imply the cash value of the Bitch record was more but that since it is a unique item signed to the cover artist, it has associational value, the only copy in existance like this. Sure this record was signed but this is the only one like it...possibly in an auction it might sell for more if the association is stressed, but not necessarily. To me if a record is signed to a person related to the band, be it a producer, studio guy, cover artist, close friend that help pay for the pressing of the record(just for examples), these have to be potentially worth more if the right person gets offered the record.

For example though, I think if a Metallica 12" record with cover art by Pushead was signed to Pushead by the whole band, it would be worth a lot, so that meets your meaning for famous bands.

I don't mind autographed items, but I will not pay one cent extra for the autographs' presence- too easy to fake 'em.

If the album has really nice cover art I might avoid an autographed copy, but if the cover is rather plain then it's presence is not gonna bother me. Still won't pay extra for it, but I wouldn't consider it worth less just b/c of the autograph either (unless I knew it was a fake- then it just becomes WOC).