Antique inscriptions and old photo annotations: Yay or nay?

This is a carved wooden loon. While it’s not what my mother would call a “working duck” once used by hunters (loons are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918) it is a work of art. This is what’s on the bottom of the decoy:

Those of us who regularly tune into Antiques Roadshow on PBS or its British cousin (see Antiques Roadshow: UK vs. US versions) know that an inscription left by anyone other than the creator is often regarded as marring the original work. This can lower the auction value, even as it may increase the personal value … for instance, if an ancestor added the markings.

The issue of inscriptions comes up with photos, too. A historian left a comment on an EasyGenie video titled “Scanning old photos? Here’s my approach for organizing and deciding what to throw out.”

The commenter disagreed with the premise of the video, stating that using an automatic scanner and writing on the backs of photos would cause damage. I regularly annotate the backs of old photos to include information about the subject and provenance. Some photos also have existing annotations that are extremely useful:

“Well meaning archivists in the past damaged irreplaceable photographs by making these errors,” the YouTube commenter stated. “It is easy to just place a card/paper underneath it in your archive sleeve.”

I have mixed feelings. Of course, no one wants to damage important family photos. On the other hand, rigorous requirements and processes can lead to other problems. Flatbed scanners like the Epson v600 take far more time to operate, and may discourage some people from digitizing large collections. I will continue to use my scanner, a ScanSnap iX1300, which can scan about 20 photos in one minute.

Annotations on a separate piece of paper sounds great in theory, but they may be lost or misplaced later, making it impossible for future generations to determine who was in the photo. This is already an issue with old picture albums - after the glue or tape deteriorates, the photos eventually fall out and become separated from their annotations, as you can see on the right side of this 1920s-era album:

What do the experts say? The National Archives discourages automatic feed scanners for “fragile, weak, bent, or valuable papers.” But it also warns that the lid of flatbed scanners can also cause damage if the original doesn’t fit on the glass.

The American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC) has the following advice for photographs:

• If it is necessary to mark a photograph, write lightly with a soft lead pencil on the reverse of the image. Do not use ink pens.
• Keep the environment free of debris, paper clips, moisture, and anything that might attract pests, such as food or baits.
• Avoid storing photographs in the attic, the basement, or along the outside walls of a building. High temperature and relative humidity increase deterioration and promote the growth of mold and mildew.

Some of these suggestions are easier to follow than others. It’s trivial to switch to a soft lead pencil, or start storing photos in protective sleeves that fit into 3-ring binders. But not everyone can store collections of photos and other documents in humidity-controlled rooms.

As for the wooden loon, I’m thankful that someone - or several someones - decided to leave the inscriptions. While the ink and stickers likely caused some light damage to the underside and lowered the value, these markings tell the story of the carving, which gives this heirloom personal value beyond the auction price.