Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on September 25, 2016 at 12:42pm

Looks ok, make sure you get a good price and its the one you want. There are a lot out there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff on September 25, 2016 at 2:49pm

Thanks Ian! Just like you said, I will take my time and won't rush anything.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on September 25, 2016 at 12:50pm

The only thing I will say is, it is signed in the dark spot of the picture and a little hard to see. That might be different in person. However, if it is a good price and you like it then go for it. Ian is right though, I think there are alot of Clints out there. However he is getting up in age, and we all know how prices inflate after...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff on September 25, 2016 at 2:51pm

Thanks Adam! The price is indeed very good. Maybe I'll ask for more pictures to see if the signature is that hard to see.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on September 25, 2016 at 1:16pm

Looks pretty typical to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff on September 25, 2016 at 2:51pm

Reassuring, thanks Mike!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 25, 2016 at 9:54pm

Hello,

Whatever floats your boat but you asked for opinions - to me, this has very poor contrast and placement, all that rain obscures the signature, the photo overpowers the signature and the image appears juiced in color and not terribly well focused (more about that later). What is that large "white" three part artifact in the upper right? The glare see no on the paper top middle suggests it is a not a photograph but a grainy computer print as well - and that is not worth what a lab photo is to many. The blue ink is a thicker pen is seems, this also makes appreciating the signature very difficult. I would pass quickly - to me this is a problem piece and that should be reflected in the price - it might be. Patience and a better one for you should pop up.

Best wishes,

                Eric

PS - Joe has or had a superb example - ask him to post it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff on September 25, 2016 at 10:05pm

Thank you so much Eric. This is a life-saver as I really didn't pick up on the (poor) print quality, even after examining the image several times (just thought it was grainy because it was taken from the movie).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 25, 2016 at 11:27pm

Hi again,

That photo could be on matte finish reg paper, but the image and sig seem poor to me in either event.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on September 26, 2016 at 6:03pm

the poor contrast makes it difficult to see the actual flow of the signature.  as Eric said, the print quality is poor. I think you can do better elsewhere.

• ▶ Reply