what did you say?
use "google translate" for clarity
who's balls are you talking about?
I do like Italian meatballs just to be clear ;)
I don't understand it either. What do you mean by that?
Phil Sears once told me that "an autograph will not look better in person but could look worse". A quick opinion basically rules out an obvious fake or secretarial. But, it should be well known that any autograph needs to be viewed in person to be properly authenticated.
I saw it. It was incredible. Papers do NOT "make things real" no matter the source :(
The most telling this to me was the desire to frame the COA with the sig- that was VERY suggestive.
Can this discussion please just go away!!
We don’t care about your Lennon sig anymore. Especially after your last stupid comment regarding that it doesn’t matter if it’s real or not, that’s beyond stupid...
Real autograph collectors love the signature itself, not the value it has. That can be a nice bonus for sure, but not what matters the most!
+1. Totally agree Cogo!
Can we lock this discussion?
I dont know if there is something lost in translation, but you are showing your true colors here Daniel. And it is disappointing. You are saying that even if you knew for sure that a signature was fake, as long as you had a COA from a reliable source, you would be able to sell it in good conscience, and also feel good about making a tidy profit. That puts you in the same category as the scum bag sellers on ebay doing basically the same thing. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your statement above.
plus one. could we just close this really depressing discussion please
I never have really satisfied myself as to why some don’t like this autograph?
Isn’t it just that it ‘might’ be a reproduction rather than there being anything wrong with the actual formation of the signature (Which I personally think is fine) ?
If that is the case well that’s just something that could be said about a high percentage of autographs, why does this appear to merit extra focus in this instance?
I have sympathies on both sides of the discussion, on the one hand I do think that more and more threads are being confused by the so true it should be obvious fact that there’s no real way of telling that an Internet reproduction is of a genuinely signed autograph while on the other I do think the OP hasn’t handled the well intended and let’s not forget it, free and valuable advice very gracefully.