Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dane on June 3, 2014 at 2:10am

Try taking the picture with more lights on and from further away. It's well out of focus, even though it's high resolution. Also, take it against a plain background, so the camera doesn't get confused focusing on the wood grain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on June 3, 2014 at 3:03am

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Karr on June 4, 2014 at 4:02am

I think it's very hard one- it has some positive, but the autograph made on the boot is not typical for writing, Hope someone will tell more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Gregory on June 4, 2014 at 3:11pm

Boots are always tough to tell but I still think it's off compared to others so would avoid

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on June 4, 2014 at 10:33pm

thank you very much for the replies which I have just seen.  I also had  some doubts once it arrived altho I was trying to stay positive but would some body be very kind to give me some further information as to why its off.  I think the D is too big as well & stretches too far in.  I think it looks very slowly formed but on the other hand writing on a boot is somewhat difficult.  on the plus side I like the fact that the ink dries up when the a and m connects 

Unfortuantely I am going to need some more specific info about what is wrong with it if I am going to get my money back as mega stupidly I have already purchased it believing in the sanctity of the AFTAL & UAAC  membership .    I did look at many B sigs  before I bid on it but couldn't find one similar or with such big writing; - but trusted the AFTAL & UAAC  brand, otherwise I would have never bid on it.   

  To make matters worse I also didn't buy it from ebay but from one of the sellers own auctions so I am going to need some solid facts to get my money back if  there are serious concerns.   The pictures are actually not mine  . The first picture is from the seller & the second one is from the auction house   that  originally sold the Beckham which someone cleverly discovered   .  I have to sadly admit that it sold for a very low price at this  auction house if it was genuine B sig  altho I am trying to  believe that this  could be because B is not that  popular anymore  

perhaps someone would be kind enough to give me some more specific information on any other probs they see with the sig.

I am sorry if I have repeated myself but am rather stressed  . thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dane on June 4, 2014 at 11:00pm

UACC/AFTAL dealer (not just a member) should be willing to take the item back, since there are questions. Do you know their dealer number? If not, just report the fraud to your credit card company, if the seller won't take it back for questions of authenticity.

Here's the dealer directory:
http://uacc.org/dealerdirectory.php

If the seller's name isn't on that list, you could probably claim fraudulent misrepresentation as a UACC dealer. If they are on the list and refuse to refund you for a questionable auto, you could potentially contact UACC about it. In any case, I hope you're able to get your money back.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dane on June 4, 2014 at 3:18pm

I would say no good. "D" looks completely wrong. Though, as others have said, it might be the surface. I doubt it though, as it looks "drawn" to me. No real spontaneity. Also, I'm not positive, but I always thought Beckham crossed his "7"s.

That said, much better picture. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Gregory on June 5, 2014 at 2:01am

Hi Michelle. you may want to message Mike Frost at P.A.A.S as I know they a good one on eBay and he can give you an authenticators opinion to put to the seller. Did you pay via credit card or bank transfer or PayPal as you may be able to get a charge back. 

The start of the signature is off and some way off as the D is very off compared to others. There is no natural flow to the writing and the size of the overall signature is more condensed than others. 

As Dane says a UACC / AFTAL dealer should take the item back with any doubts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on June 5, 2014 at 3:52am

Thanks for that Dan.  I have just emailed Mike cos a professional sports view would help altho I ran out of space as there was only room for 200 letters

No I paid with credit card but I have also purchased a large pop collection from him over the last years  but that does seem to be ok.  Appreciate your help

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dane on June 7, 2014 at 7:16pm

You should dispute the charge on your credit card, ASAP. Once you pay the bill, you're no longer protected by the credit card. If the seller agrees to accept the item back and refund, then great. However, if they don't, at least you've started the process, so you'll be protected on your end.

Tell the credit card company and your bank that the item you received was misrepresented as authentic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on June 8, 2014 at 10:24pm

many thanks for everyones advice.  I am v  grateful.  I am being as pro active as possible to try and get my money back but I am boxed into a corner on all options until I     find a  dealer here with accreditation to counter balance the sellers recent statement 100 authentic , studied D's sig for decade etc, etc.......No point about thinking of chargeback now because   without evidence from a dealer with similar parity to   this dealers   I will probably lose. I know how a hamster feels but I am ploughing on  to try and get my money back ; - but it is very stressful!!! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Frost on June 5, 2014 at 7:28am

I am sorry but reviewing this autograph via scan I would have to say that the signature is Not Likely Genuine.  As both Dan and George have stated a boot (cleat) is very difficult to sign due to the surface and shape. There are many variations of David Beckham's autograph over the years but this signature shows many inconsistencies. If you wish to send the item over to me for a physical examination, I would glad help you with this matter without a charge.

Thank you

Michael Frost   

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page