JayBenoit Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Looking for people's opinions. Planning on getting MJF and Sigourney to sign posters and not sure of the pros and cons of using far cheaper reproduced posters vs sometimes vastly more expensive originals. Anyone else been in the same position? What did you decide? Is the extra cost worth it etc? These posters won't be sold (at least by me) but framed and eventually handed down to my daughter to sell if she wants etc so future value does come into the equation. On that basis I'm not sure if I should get them personalised either. Any thoughts welcome! JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swissangel4616 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) well, let say... the price will be higher in your collection, when you get an original poster signed. A true fan/collector would prefer a original poster. But even Back to the Future original poster can have now a price of $ 800.-- and more - depends on the condition. But when you give it to your daughter... hm.. a Re-Print might be fine too. Edited June 22, 2015 by Swissangel4616 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db570uk Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) I have been in the same predicament. I decided to take the plunge and went for original movie posters versus the reproductions. I bought a US one sheet for BTTF and a UK one sheet Aliens poster.I am a big fan of 80's movies. It cost me a bit of money but it was my my own personal preference. I normally go for signed 8 x 10s. But with great guests attending I am opting to get signed posters this year I don't have any cast signed items in my collection and these 2 posters probably will be my first and last signed posters, or until the next great lineup next year I did think about buying foreign issued posters which tend to be a lot cheaper in some cases and some have better designs. The foreign Nightmare on Elm Street Posters do look quite good. I had read that autographs can devalue rare posters and was thinking of reproduction posters up until yesterday for the Aliens poster but opted for the UK International one sheet poster. Edited June 22, 2015 by BigDave 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayBenoit Posted June 22, 2015 Author Share Posted June 22, 2015 I used to be all about the 10 x 8's but now I find it a lot cooler to get a movie poster signed and framed on the wall in my home office. Although obviously they take up a lot more room! Interesting point about signatures devalueing rare/original posters. I would have thought the right signature would increase the value? Where did you purchase your one sheets for BTTF and Aliens if you don't mind me asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dent_1 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) Interesting topic. To serious poster collectors, re-prints are garbage and not worth the paper they are printed on. This is an opinion I agree with 100% unless you want a nice image on the cheap, don't place any intrinsic value on authentic pop-culture memorabilia, or want something for easy to display purposes, rather than archival. Also, if you are gifting to someone else they will usually not understand the value of originals over reprints: it is an argument of a piece of paper vs. an 'identical' piece of paper. If you want something impressive and of real 'value', the preferred option is to have originals signed. Ironically though, most poster collectors are of the belief that signatures (no matter who they are from) devalue rare and desirable posters. End of. So really it comes down to the individual preference of the collector. A signed poster usually has no value to anyone but the person who collected the signatures, especially if the autographs are personalised. And if they are not personalised, so in theory 'worth' more to another collector, good luck proving their provenance. Catch-22. I have many original movie posters and when I have had the occasional piece signed, I do feel I am defacing a piece of artwork. That said, if I was going to potentially have it signed by celebrities at a cost of hundreds of pounds, I would rather they weren't signing something worthless. The only good thing about reprints is they are cheap and will always be in perfect condition, but that's it. They're not even the correct size as originals so are not even faithful reproductions. Edited June 22, 2015 by Dent_1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvirtue Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I collect only 'original' posters to get signed and have an original BTTF2 poster for MJF to sign. The UK Quads and US One Sheets are the most expensive generally but there are also some nice Aussie Daybills that tend to be cheaper and they are a really nice size for display. I got a Top Gun Daybill for Tom Cruise to sign which looka great. Also lobby card sets are also good to get signed. Personally I wouldn't go for repro posters to get signed. Also you'll tend to find if a movie has been rereleased then the poster will be cheaper more often than not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reedierules89 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I find alot of original movie posters go for alot of money and sometimes they dont look that good, the whole mondo thing at the moment is really cool and if you go on the site red bubble you can get some really cool original posters done by fans etc that soemtimes look better than the originals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemooo Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) interesting points, & agree, orginal are better. I dont collect posters but I searched the market for original Aliens (& Empire Strikes Back) poster & couldn't get one in decent condition & reasonable price. I ended up with one good reproduction instead. Ideally, I would go with orginal posters but since it's hard to get one now & autos are my main goal I settled with reproduction one. Edited June 23, 2015 by Hemooo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john.bttf Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Interresting topic :-) For me, I have no choice that to choose a reprint. If i could, i take my time machine and go back to collect original posters of my favorite movies... I prefer take reprint for 30€ in a very good condition (rolled in a tube) and have the opportunity to meet some great guests lile michael J fox. But true collectors will take an original at 800$. (And maybe missed the guest with a lack of money :-( ). Everyone make his choice. And at the end, the value of a signed poster, is the value that someone else want to rebuy to you. You can say : my BTTF signed poster value 1500€, if no-one want to buy it, you have just a piece of paper. I collect the posters signed to meet the guest first :-) and expose it to my house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambert Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Original all the way. I collect British quads and mostly 007 expensive hobby as I'm sue you know. I think it devalues the art work and won't do integrity of the paper much good either Having said that though. John hurt got very excited when I presented him with a quad of elephant man to sign as did george Kennedy with my very cheap return of the 7 poster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayBenoit Posted June 23, 2015 Author Share Posted June 23, 2015 Some interesting feedback. Many thanks guys. My thinking was that as I was paying all this money for autographs from MJF and SW, should I then pay out even more for original print posters. Would these A list movie stars autograph be 'lessened' by having them sign on reprinted posters....... After all of the useful info you guys have provided I think I am going to use reprinted posters. The main factor was the future value of these items. It would have been great to have the option of being able to sell them in the future if that's what my daughter chooses but reading some of your thoughts on future value I think I am going to enjoy them for what they will mean to me. 2 super cool signed BBTF and ALIENS posters on the wall in my home office! Thanks again guys! JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenGreen Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Interestingly I think there is a view that autographed original film posters is actually a negative amongst the die hard original poster collecting community, they would prefer to keep the poster as close to its original and pristine state. For the general movie collector though, I think they are as likely to be interested in a signed reprint of say BTTF, if it is something they are looking to display , so that is where you want to effectively pick the best image and that doesn't necessarily mean it is the U.K. or USA image, so I think worth shopping around. I suppose in these instances it is as much, if not more the autographs on the poster that are the key part, rather than the poster itself. I've not got that many posters signed myself, although I do have a mix of a few originals and reprints, but the biggest bind for me is still carrying the things around to the shows, which tends to mean I often don't bother and end up getting a 10x8 or DVD/Blu Ray signed. Having said that, I have seen some pretty incredible signed posters over the years, which do look fantastic, ones from Star Wars, Doctor Who, Game of Thrones, LOTR etc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveamyadams Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 people who collect original movie posters won't touch anything 'signed' no matter how big the star. A signature on an original poster automatically means it is no longer in mint condition and is devalued straight away. autograph collectors are a different group of people who may see it differently but a signature on a poster to a 'poster collector' is as bad as a crease or a tear.Theres more money spent on posters than autos. As your not selling it for money and only a fan decorating your office wall you'd be better off just getting a nice reproduction poster which looks just as good when framed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayBenoit Posted June 23, 2015 Author Share Posted June 23, 2015 people who collect original movie posters won't touch anything 'signed' no matter how big the star. A signature on an original poster automatically means it is no longer in mint condition and is devalued straight away. autograph collectors are a different group of people who may see it differently but a signature on a poster to a 'poster collector' is as bad as a crease or a tear.Theres more money spent on posters than autos. As your not selling it for money and only a fan decorating your office wall you'd be better off just getting a nice reproduction poster which looks just as good when framed. Yep, good advice. Now I just need to decide on a BTTF poster (more iconic) or a BTTF 2 one (with both MJF and CL on it which would look better signed by both perhaps) Decisions decisions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now