Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on February 17, 2013 at 4:32pm

While the sig could be authentic I dont understand why they dont include the "proof" photos.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on February 17, 2013 at 4:42pm

I've seen that before, even from bonafide legit collectors.  I remember one listing I was looking at that had excellent exact proof of the artist signing that exact signature on that item.  And the listing noted that the photo would NOT be included.  Yikes, why the hell not?!  Especially if you're charging the buyer an arm and a leg for the autograph, the least you could do is throw in the relevant photo specific to the item.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on February 17, 2013 at 4:55pm

Maybe they dont want others to try and pass it on later that they received it in person or to use the photo's to pass off other items.

I think both of these are good signatures.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on February 17, 2013 at 4:59pm

I guess.  Still kinda kills a big part of the selling point of "exact proof" if you aren't allowed to keep it!

But I agree, the seller does seem legit from what I can see.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on February 17, 2013 at 5:08pm

True but exact proof to me is seeing the exact item being signed. A picture of the celeb signing something that I cant see what it is doesn't do anything for me really.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on February 17, 2013 at 5:13pm

In the case of this Waters sig, that's quite true.  But I've also seen some listings where the proof photo is the exact item/signature, and they're still too stingy to include it with a purchase.  I guess there's always screen cap and the option to print the listing out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tyler Gray on February 17, 2013 at 5:02pm

I have met Waters before... definitely look like good signatures in my opinion.

• ▶ Reply