The essence of a signature

the thought was born with a fellow collector who owns a multi-signed book , with multiple signatures of the same author and now I am just curious to get your opinions on that case.

When you follow the "signed book" situation way back in history,
in the very first days owning a signed book meant that this was a gift from the author to you as a person, nearly close to 100% of the cases with an inscription of dedication.

Other then that signed books where not known.

With growing size of literature and writers, and also with the fame of particular writers
signing a book translates (for me) to "the Author had this particular book in hands , and the sig proofes that" or "i met the author in person"

when you follow this thesis, and i would be curious to hear if you do, what would that mean for multi signed works ?

does having multiple signatures of one author in one book makes a difference to you ?
What does a signature mean to you ?

I have some signed/limited editions with an extra inscription/signature/date, but was informed by a collector here that this is not desirable to him. Each to his own I suppose.

I agree with the thought that the signature means that I actually met the person signing. To mean, buying something with a signature already on it doesn't really add much value.

I don't actually have any signed books but I have a few other items from various famous people that are signed. To me, it's just proof that I actually got to meet them and talk with them if only for a few seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Rabbit Trick

I have some signed/limited editions with an extra inscription/signature/date, but was informed by a collector here that this is not desirable to him. Each to his own I suppose.

---

exactly thats what i experienced, inscriptions are not very popular this days, because they remind you that the book was meant for somebody else.
That would underline my theory even if its just unconsciously

a blank signature is something like a joker - it is automatically "for you" as it is for nobody, only the fact remains that you know if its signed in your present or not.

I like a signed book from Authors i love. Stephen King does an excellent job of signing his books! IF they take the time to sign the book. I do not like Michael Connelly's signature (scribble), R Martin Arthurs, Games of Thrones, Terrible! Andy Weir the martian. couldnt even buy it. same with the Simple Plan. i returned it.

It means to me, they took the time to sign their work and they appreciate the fans, that are reading their work (the cynic could say, they know it would help sales).

I love every one of my 208 signed SK books, and cant ever see parting with any of these books!

Personally I'm not a signature collector. I have a few signed limiteds but those were purchased primarily for the craftsmanship of the book and preference for the story; most are gift editions. If I were to get a book personally inscribed by SK the only one I would consider is my original beat-up 'Salem's Lot paperback purchased in August of 1976. That would definitely mean something to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roseannebarr

I like a signed book from Authors i love. Stephen King does an excellent job of signing his books! IF they take the time to sign the book. I do not like Michael Connelly's signature (scribble), R Martin Arthurs, Games of Thrones, Terrible! Andy Weir the martian. couldnt even buy it. same with the Simple Plan. i returned it.

It means to me, they took the time to sign their work and they appreciate the fans, that are reading their work (the cynic could say, they know it would help sales).

I love every one of my 208 signed SK books, and cant ever see parting with any of these books!

---

I saw one of the Scott Smith 'sigs' and agree, it looked more like initials. Some other authors have much better-quality signatures, like Dan Simmons, Richard Matheson, Dean Koontz. Now what do all of you think of the publisher-bound signed books (tipped-in) that have become more popular in the last couple of years?

I like the signed limited's because at least you know it is not a fake, i have only a few flat signed book's Finder's Keeper's is one that I was present when King signed the book in Maine, with only one inscribed being Mr Mercede's.

King inscribes a couple of books to me, but I wasn't present when he did so.
He's also signed (but not inscribed) numerous books that I was present for..
<------------------Perhaps still looking for "essence".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randall Flagg

King inscribes a couple of books to me, but I wasn't present when he did so.
He's also signed (but not inscribed) numerous books that I was present for..
<------------------Perhaps still looking for "essence".

---

so doest it feel different to you if you have been present, or are they equally in terms of emotional binding.
How about books you bought with an "anonymous" signature or like in the sample books with multiple signatures of the same author ?

I enjoy the chase, but the most fun I have had has been interacting with other King fans and particularity DT.ORG gatherings-quite a bit more essence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Priest

When you follow the "signed book" situation way back in history,
in the very first days owning a signed book meant that this was a gift from the author to you as a person, nearly close to 100% of the cases with an inscription of dedication.

Other then that signed books where not known.

---

I don't know about that. I don't know how far back in history you're suggesting your thesis proves, but there have been signed/limited editions for quite some time...Mark Twain had several of them in the very early part of the 20th Century, the Limited Editions Club put a number of signed/limited editions in the early 20th century, and so on...the signed (i.e. not inscribed) book really came into its own in the 20th century, but is not at all limited to the mid or latter part of the century. Granted, there are fewer examples as one starts edging back into the 19th century and back beyond, but if the definition of "way back in history" encompasses 100 or so years, there are plenty of examples of signed-but-not-inscribed books.

As far as the signed vs. inscribed issue: I vastly prefer signed and will avoid inscribed unless I've no other choice. If it's a signed/limited edition, an add'l inscription will devalue the book to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Priest

exactly thats what i experienced, inscriptions are not very popular this days, because they remind you that the book was meant for somebody else.
That would underline my theory even if its just unconsciously

a blank signature is something like a joker - it is automatically "for you" as it is for nobody, only the fact remains that you know if its signed in your present or not.

---

This statement is true for me. I will not collect a book with an inscription to someone else. If it's a generic inscription (i.e., no name) I'm 100% okay. It's having someone else's name written in the book that turns me off.

With the exception of some S/L (King, for example), I've now gotten to the point where I am pretty much only collecting those books that I can receive directly from the author, inscribed to me. I like to go see the author speak, and get that book signed as a memory of that. I'm much less excited now than I used to be about just having a signed book sitting on my shelf.

To me, a signature is a personal link to whoever wrote it, whether it's addressed to me or if I was present or not. It means they held the book (or whatever) in their hands. I have many a signed baseball card, and I wouldn't trade a Carl Yazstremski or Bob Gibson for anything. I've got a Herbert Hoover on White House letterhead ... I wasn't there, but I still like it. Same for books; it's great if I was there and its inscribed to me, but an S/L or flatsigned is very cool too. At the Barnes & Noble black Friday signed books sale, I picked up two The Polar Express for my kids, a couple of Clive Cusslers, a Bill Nye, an Andy Weir, and a couple of others ... all cool!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RC65

If it's a signed/limited edition, an add'l inscription will devalue the book to me.

---

That's what someone else on here stated.

So an inscription to a famous person say, John F. Kennedy would devalue a book? I think not.

Everyone will have varying opinions I think.....a flatsigned copy is "generic" in that it can be transferred to ANY owner and thus has somewhat more "broad-based" collector appeal. That said, inscribed books are 1) harder to forge/fake and 2) sometimes the inscription itself is tre cool (Green Day reference) or an association copy that is much more valuable than a flatsigned book. I own a 1st edition Salem's Lot that is inscribed and dated to King's college roommate with what I believe to be the earliest known date, October 3, 1975 two WEEKS prior to publication. That personal inscription trumps any flatsigned copy in my opinion. And maybe this is not a good example as all Plant S/Ls (as far as I know) were inscribed to people....but the sets I own of the Plant inscribed to Kirby McCauley and to Kay McCauley are more valuable (to me) than would be any flatsigned copies.

As to the "essence" of a signature, I have quite a number of books that King personally signed in front of me...ALL flatsigned. They do NOT (any of them) hold a special place in my collector's heart BECAUSE they were signed in front of me. My copy of Black House signed by King and Straub at the WaveDancer benefit on Feb 2, 2002 holds no greater place in my heart than a Lisey's story flatsigned that I bought off of eBay. That is just ONE PERSON'S opinion. Others are free to disagree and I will never tell them they are wrong. Collecting is a truly PERSONAL experience.

What do all of you think of the publisher-bound signed 1st edition books (tipped-in) that have become more popular in the last couple of years? King hasn't done any of these specifically that I know of, but a number of popular writers have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goheat

What do all of you think of the publisher-bound signed 1st edition books (tipped-in) that have become more popular in the last couple of years? King hasn't done any of these specifically that I know of, but a number of popular writers have.

---

I like them. I like to try to collect one autograph from my favorite athletes, authors, singers, etc. If I can get the signature tipped-in to the book, at least I know the signature is legit, and much cheaper than obtaining it other ways (as long as an autopen wasn't used).

For example, I picked up a copy of Jerry Rice's new Super Bowl book with a tipped-in sig page for $25. No way could I pay that same price for an autographed football. I don't worry about future value. I'm just an old-school autograph collector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ELazansky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goheat

What do all of you think of the publisher-bound signed 1st edition books (tipped-in) that have become more popular in the last couple of years? King hasn't done any of these specifically that I know of, but a number of popular writers have.

---

I like them. I like to try to collect one autograph from my favorite athletes, authors, singers, etc. If I can get the signature tipped-in to the book, at least I know the signature is legit, and much cheaper than obtaining it other ways (as long as an autopen wasn't used).

For example, I picked up a copy of Jerry Rice's new Super Bowl book with a tipped-in sig page for $25. No way could I pay that same price for an autographed football. I don't worry about future value. I'm just an old-school autograph collector.

---

I collect autographed sports books as well. Obviously a signed ball, helmet, etc. would be worth more, but I've always been amazed by how little value the signed books have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goheat

What do all of you think of the publisher-bound signed 1st edition books (tipped-in) that have become more popular in the last couple of years? King hasn't done any of these specifically that I know of, but a number of popular writers have.

---

:evil: OH! YES HE HAS....
http://imageshack.com/a/img905/452/MsqVmt.jpg http://imageshack.com/a/img908/8787/7BU5Sh.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img911/9980/Pf8M5h.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by needfulthings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goheat

What do all of you think of the publisher-bound signed 1st edition books (tipped-in) that have become more popular in the last couple of years? King hasn't done any of these specifically that I know of, but a number of popular writers have.

---

:evil: OH! YES HE HAS....
http://imageshack.com/a/img905/452/MsqVmt.jpg http://imageshack.com/a/img908/8787/7BU5Sh.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img911/9980/Pf8M5h.jpg

---

Gah, I forgot those bookplate versions in the UK!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goheat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roseannebarr

I like a signed book from Authors i love. Stephen King does an excellent job of signing his books! IF they take the time to sign the book. I do not like Michael Connelly's signature (scribble), R Martin Arthurs, Games of Thrones, Terrible! Andy Weir the martian. couldnt even buy it. same with the Simple Plan. i returned it.

It means to me, they took the time to sign their work and they appreciate the fans, that are reading their work (the cynic could say, they know it would help sales).

I love every one of my 208 signed SK books, and cant ever see parting with any of these books!

---

I saw one of the Scott Smith 'sigs' and agree, it looked more like initials. Some other authors have much better-quality signatures, like Dan Simmons, Richard Matheson, Dean Koontz.

---

There have been some really good books I didn't get because of how bad the signature was. My thought was, "Well, it's VG now."

When I sign my name it is basically my initials, but it is bold and present.

When Scott Smith signs it's like he's initialing a form at the DMV or on a mortgage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goheat

Gah, I forgot those bookplate versions in the UK!

---

Bookplates aren't tipped in, so you are still technically correct.