Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on August 13, 2012 at 6:43pm

For what it's worth here's mine.  It was signed in 1978.  I suspect that it was a TTM.  I'm just happy to have it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on August 13, 2012 at 7:37pm

Robin, here is the example that I posted the link to above and this is what I think.  It seems to be slightly similar to yours with the exception of the line that is missing underneath the signature on yours.  That is something that would concern me because Sir Alec did add a line beneath his signature very often.  It does not appear that the signature was signed by a forger any time recently and that it was probably signed years ago by the tint of the ink.  Notice that the blue ink on the example is faded very similarly.  Did you ask the seller what the history of the item was?  How and when did they acquire it?  If you trust the seller to be reputable and if nobody else identifies it as a common forgery or a secretarial piece I would say that it may be okay. I am still a little concerned about the line being missing however.  I am also a little concerned about the scale and the “A” being more oval in shape than is typical of his signature.  That’s just my opinion of course.  I am only a collector.  I would still like to get a good look at that “G”.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by trimblej3 on August 13, 2012 at 8:30pm

Here is an index card I received via a mail request around 1995 or so when I was in college and trying to collect autographs by mail...Mr. Guinness or someone paid for the postage back to from Great Britain to the U.S. when I miss calculated, which I thought was super cool.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• photo (68).JPG, 1.9 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robin McKay on August 14, 2012 at 10:08am

Everyone,

Thank you all for your support in authenticating my photos - now I'm getting upset in all honesty because I resent being sold fake material and the money I've spent getting these autographs (with the exception of Jackson) through supposed reliable dealers has left a really bitter taste in my mouth and has disheartened my interest in the hobby.

As Brandon will testify, I have some good ones in my collection which I will always treasure like Ford etc. but I just don't really know now who I can trust and who are the legit dealers etc. Maybe I'm just letting my frustrations out and sounding a bit silly, but I'm not amused right now. 

For further info, the above Guinness was bought through an AFTAL/UACC dealer and I will remove this individual from the list of dealers I will go through in future as this one meant a lot to me, this particular autograph and I've just been let down. It seems to be happening just a bit too often now and I think and I'm sorry if this upsets anyone but AFTAL have a lot to answer for because they're supposed to police these things but it seems if anything, its just getting worse. 

I guess I have the certificates and receipts but its going to be a difficult process now to sort this. 

Furthermore, in regards to the photo, I too was concerned by the ink viscosity, the line underneath that is supposed to be there and to the eagle eyed individuals, the small dot which also appeared underneath his signature. I'm too angry right now to think rationally and I resent I've been sold potentially bogus material. 

Back to the drawing board. 

Thanks for all your help, though. 

Kindest Regards

Robin

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on August 14, 2012 at 10:37am

Don’t give up on the hobby yet Robin.  There are a lot of good dealers out there and they all make mistakes now and then.  You may still want to contact the dealer that sold you this piece to voice your concerns.  I'm not ready to give up on it yet.  You admittedly had a bad feeling about this one.  Pun intended.  When purchasing in the future just follow the advice that Obi-Wan gave Luke on the Millennium Falcon.  “Stretch out with your feelings.”

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robin McKay on August 14, 2012 at 2:22pm

I know there are, I was just getting fed up of getting burned and venting my frustrations. However what is ironic is that the slightly more well known dealers have come under fire recently. One in particular whom shall remain nameless for now as I have scrutinised my collection and come to the conclusion that my questionable items came from that particular dealer so I think I will give them a miss. The way I see it is if you keep all the info that came with the autograph and if it ever does come into disrepute then you can take steps to rectify the issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on August 14, 2012 at 11:13am

I'm not entirely convinced it is no good either. It does look slightly off, but sometimes weird angles and slight fuzziness can distort and give a wrong impression. That is why I requested a better image without the glare. It would also help to see the autograph in the context of the whole picture because size is critical.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brandon Mysinger on August 14, 2012 at 12:54pm

I agree, don't accept any opinion here until you give people a high quality image to look at 1st. I will post my other Sir. Alec as well. It's not a SW shot but it is a perfect example of his 1980's era signature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on August 14, 2012 at 11:18am

By the way, the line underneath means nothing in my opinion. Some times he did it, some times he didn't. After faking an entire signature, a forger could just as easily make a line underneath. In fact, I think a forger would be more apt to make a line because that is the way "it's supposed to be." As you can see in the SW pic I posted directly from Sir Alec, he did not make the line.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on August 14, 2012 at 11:26am

My thoughts exactly.  Why would a forger place a dot at the end of the signature and not beneath it with the traditional line?  He would either do both or neither.  I too noticed that there was no line on the lightsaber in your photo.  I'm wondering if Sir Alec was simply signing a lot of these photos and in the interest of time was not as careful as usual.  You can imagine how busily he must have been signing in the 1980s which is when I suspect this to have been signed.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on August 14, 2012 at 11:34am

I don't know, Mike. The one in question appears a little looser and with the more oval A. I was thinking -- if it is real -- it may be a later in life signature similar to the ones I posted from 1999.

Of course, it's all speculation without a much sharper and larger image. :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on August 14, 2012 at 11:42am

You are probably right about the overall structure.  I guess it was what appears to be a pink marker that made my brain think 1980s.  It may just be faded red.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page