The importance of artists’ signatures

That very much depends on who the artist is. All in all, these days of internet has made most things collectible very available. So, If I really like the art/ist it's cool to have the connection.

I don't really care. It'd be cool to have Picasso's signature in the LEC Lysistrata, for instance, but more as an interesting novelty than an integral part of the book.

I don’t care at all about signatures. I could understand caring about a signed by the author book when you met the author and got the signature yourself, but otherwise the signatures, author or artist, are just something that gets done to make more money and is totally impersonal.

>4 RRCBS: Since you feel that way -- a position I completely respect, fwiw -- if you ever come into possession of a book signed by Herman Melville please pass said book on to me :)

>5 gmacaree: if it was one that got signed as part of a release of books, I would def trade it for a comparable unsigned book…but I’m definitely not the norm for a boon collector!

Example : I can say as much that I would collect Sam Webers (and some others) with FS, and I know I would not be alone. That may be because I have been there from the start of his FS contracts. But in general. I don't collect a book only because it is signed.

I care more about signatures from the book artisans. Printer, binder, designer, etc., because such signatures speak to satisfaction with the quality of the physical artifact, at least in theory.

Artist is relevant to that concern, generally more so than author, but of less interest to me than the other book artisans.

There are probably artists for whom I would particularly value signatures, but I am not generally prepared to spend enough on books to swim in real livre d'artiste waters.

I don't understand the modern 1st/1st collecting community's fascination with author signatures. Neither personal nor directly connected to the genesis of the artifact.

There is no way to prove that a signature is genuine unless it is guaranteed by the publisher and bound into the book. Even certification services can’t tell for sure. I agree with >4 RRCBS: that meeting the author or artist in person can be meaningful, but there would be no way to prove your story to a future owner.

>9 jroger1: True, but I would only think it valuable for me anyway. I never think about books as something to sell and profit from.

I like remarques, especially when the artist is willing to take broad requests. Signatures by themselves don’t mean much to me unless they’re personalized—then they can remind me of a conversation I’ve had with the artist or writer.

I think they are nice to haves. I'm with abysswalker on preferring the book artist signatures.

>8 abysswalker: >12 dpbbooks: I agree fully. Craftsperson signatures interest me over author or even artist signatures. With No Reply Press, I always ask the printer (usually Jennifer Lawrence but recently Phil Abel) to sign the colophon, as well as the binder. If multiple binders work on a book, the head binder. I'm a little cross that more presses don't do this, and really cross when the printer or binder aren't even acknowledged by name in the colophon.

The best thing is when a book is truly private press and everything — authorship, artwork, printing, and binding — are done by a single person. That person's signature on the colophon becomes so very meaningful.

And, similarly to other comments here, I'm not interested in an author's signature on a trade book unless the book is inscribed to me. I have a few fun or bizarre inscriptions which I especially treasure. In one case, the author must have been high or drunk. He wrote: "To G. — Who loves the present tense as much as I do, I think, or whatever."

I want to have the signature in a book that is supposed to be signed by the illustrator. But otherwise I'd rather there were no signature. My ideal is to have as close to the pristine book as originally published as possible. Obviously, there's a financial value to having interesting signatures in books, which is itself a reason to want the signature. But I'm just talking about what I like as a collector.

>13 grifgon: In that vein, I'm a little disappointed that Richard Tong didn't sign my leather edition Stardust.

>15 kdweber: Agreed. I feel the same about how Roger Grech, who binds many of the private press books that come out of the U.K., but is never asked to sign the colophon.

In my experience, it isn't an issue of whether printers and binders are willing to sign. They're typically delighted to. It's an issue of whether publishers ask for or permit it.

>15 kdweber: did you ask for it?

I do like to have the signature of the artist who has illustrated a book (although I consider it a bonus, not a 'must have').

To take an obvious example, any collection of Limited Editions Club books will contain the signatures of many of the best book illustrators of the last 90 years or so, many of whom are no longer with us. For me the signature is a link between the hand of the artist and the book I am holding.