1) If the "proof photo" shows only the celebrity and a "blank" copy of the LP in question it is not proof. If you can't see a matching signature clearly, what have you? Nothing.
2) If the LP you bought has vintage damage not seen on the blank unsigned LP said celebrity is holding in their hands in the "proof photo" (unsigned), it is NOT proof. It is NOT the copy you bought. (Prove it is not a copy I own).
3) If said photos are altered beyond recognition, or are used to sell LP's that are NOT even shown with the celebrity, what are they worth?
4) Further, speaking of another "seller", if a seller can be shown to be factually lying on at least two counts, of great import, would this matter to you? If the graph you seek is unusual from this seller - would you buy? Knowing he has lied twice over? And is currently selling demonstrable factual forgeries - would this matter to you?
5) If a seller says "I got it myself or I bought it at auction" and then refuses to reveal the dates or auctions, would this matter to you? Especially when the seller normally, despite claiming otherwise, states his sources, but...just not to you alone (because "you would't buy it if you knew where I got it"). Would this mean anything to you?
This is for another member - I hope to help them.
PS - If the signature appears OK, but the seller swears that the "proof photo" is the exact copy being offered when it is clearly and visibly not - would you just pass on it?
When confronted with this sort of thing, and motivated by the same annoyance with this scam as you, I used the "proof photo" in reverse deliberately - to factually establish visually the LP in the "proof" photo was NOT the LP being offered. Neither was signed. I enjoyed this.
Thank you Steve for commenting.
I hope my friend will start to believe me re this type of thinking. I shall send a link to this.
Thanks - more responses welcome.
I've seen some (good) sellers doing this: Reusing past proof photos to validate items signed at a much later date. I'm sorry, but - no. The photos posted, whether exact proof or merely evidence, must be from the same encounter as the autographs or the tactic is misleading. I don't care if the autographs are authentic. Deception is deception, and the second I see it one any level from a seller, I walk away.
Unless it is pen to exact item any so called proof photo is worthless. Any unscrupulous person can grab photos off the internet to use. Ive seen some guys use the same photos over and over and one guy recognized one of his pics being used as somebody else's 'proof" photo! Here is a real proof photo,of course you also have to watch out for photoshoppers!
Thanks Ian! Nice pic too.