re:Petes autograph

[DrJimmy <DrJimmy@iamdigex.net>]

Mark

I think I was more expressing how I could not appreciate an autograph
that was either signed for either you or anyone else, whether it's
personalized or not. If you stood in line, or sent away for his autograph,
well, that's personal to only you. That's why I wouldn't buy it. Or even
accept it.

On the other hand, to turn to sports for a second, I have a couple autographs
of Oakland Raider players that were like 5 bucks and a coupon in a Sunday
paper a couple years ago. They aren't personalized, but it was a chance for
me to get something from a team 3,000 miles away.....But at the same time,
it never was anyones personal item it was the next on the list..like..my name

I don't know.....the other way would be like me taking a birthday card
and putting it on my desk when its yours....(wait, that sounds too freaky!)
I think u know what i mean...

Memorabilia runs a thin  line with me.......

PS for what its worth, Petes is the one I'd love to have. But not without
like waiting in line, ora chance meeting...maybe that sums it up...




> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:08:40 -0800 (PST)
> From: Mark <m.butt@netcom.co.uk>
> Subject: Pete's autograph
>
> >Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:38:48 -0500
> >From: DrJimmy <DrJimmy@iamdigex.net>
> >Subject: Petes autograph
>
> >Is it just me, or does it seem a little impersonal to buy someone
> elsesautographed >anything? Certainly not a conversation piece!
> <No offense Mark, but....that's just the way I feel...
>
> No, I agree with you in some respects though it is quite exciting to have a
> signed photo. There are two different reasons why people collect these
> things. As a Who fan since 1971 I have some photos and letters that I have
> obtained myself and which I value more highly than this photo -  which
> bought from a bona fide collector. However there is enormous interest in
> this country (UK) and elsewhere in Rock 'n Roll memorabilia and autographs
> and other such items exchange hands for large sums of money. In this respect
> The Who are less "marketable" than say, Elvis Presley or the Beatles as they
> don't have the same broad popular appeal. For instance, I have seen all four
> Beatles' autographs offered at more than $4000. I don't see anything
> fundamentally wrong with this as long as the stuff is obtained legitimately
> and nobody is being exploited.
>
> Hey ! You wanna buy Elvis' underpants ?
>
> Mark