Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 6, 2020 at 4:51am

Hi Martin,

It definitely is not real in my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin Slack on February 6, 2020 at 5:25am

Thanks Steve. It sold for £200 so.....so, someone took a chance.

The strange thing, is that there is a COA with it.

Thanks anyway.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 6, 2020 at 7:11am

COAs are only as good as the issuer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on February 6, 2020 at 7:49am

I’d steer very clear of this one. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Autographtastic on February 6, 2020 at 8:24am

I think this has a chance of being genuine. I've attached a couple of images from PSA's "AutographFacts" gallery and two examples that sold at RR. I see a lot of similarities there. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin Slack on February 6, 2020 at 8:48am

Thanks guys for your replies. The signature was in an auction today, that was selling a large amount of autographs and many of them had COA's from  'Autograph inc'

I didn't buy any of them as I was not sure if they were real or not.

If the Mcqueen is real....Someone got a bargain at £200

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Brown on February 6, 2020 at 9:57am

Why do people think that any random COA automatically means the item is real.  Anyone can print a COA on their computer.  It means Nothing

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin Slack on February 6, 2020 at 10:00am

Michael...This wasn't a random COA. It was a company who were selling these autographs as genuine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Brown on February 7, 2020 at 6:43am

It’s a random COA..  what exemplars did they use?  What training and experience do they have to issue an opinion..  I’m going to assume zero to both questions..  hence the random COA..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Autographtastic on February 6, 2020 at 11:20am

Steve and Patrick, I'm interested to know what you don't like about the autograph? You both seem adamant that it's no good. Here is another example on sale at Paul Fraser collectibles:

https://www.paulfrasercollectibles.com/products/steve-mcqueen-autog...

It's almost identical to the autograph in the OP. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 6, 2020 at 4:01pm

Autographtastic,

I'm happy to answer your question. First, you're right, the one Martin posted and the one you posted from Paul Fraser are almost identical. And both are in the UK, and both for sale at the same time. 

Regarding similarities:

1. They're signed at the same angle.
2. They lean to the right at the same angle.
3. The shapes of the S and T are the same.
4. The humps of the M are 2/3 the height of the top of the M; but on genuine examples they're typically half or less the height.
5. The initial downstroke of Martin's M is wobbly, and they both start the upstroke to the m's hump with a loop to the left of the downstroke. McQueen rarely if ever did that, and his upstroke is almost always to the right.
6. The Q on both are at a much steeper angle, both curving to the left considerably above the baseline, and there are no sharp points in the tails of the Q, or quick or fairly quick changes of direction.
7. Forgot: The downstroke of the T is usually fairly straight, not slightly curved outwards like the upstroke. These are both curved outwards.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Autographtastic on March 9, 2020 at 2:29pm

Sorry I didn't get back on this sooner, been really busy. I'm not disputing points 1-3. I think everyone agrees that Martin and Paul Fraser's McQueen's are very similar (some might say too similar). 

4. I don't agree that on genuine examples the humps of the M are typically half of less of the height. Many are, but plenty are larger - occasionally they're almost the same as the height. See a few examples below:

5. The initial downstroke in genuine examples does often have a little hook to the right at the top/start of the downstroke, and the Paul Fraser example has a very straight downstroke (Martin's is slightly wobbly). I think the second point is fair and does cast doubt over the authenticity of the autograph. I've struggled to find any examples where the upstroke to the first hump loops to the left of the downstroke. Although in this example it isn't a million miles away from doing so. 

The following example shows how differently he signed sometimes:

The M appears to start on the upstroke rather than the downstroke. There is some crossover of the initial upstroke and subsequent downstroke, kind of a reverse of what's seen in the Martin/Paul Fraser autos. I could make a collage of 10 genuine McQueen's, where the M in each is constructed completely differently. The huge variation in how he signed is what makes me hesitant to concede that Martin's is 100% not genuine. 

Points 6. and 7. to be looked at tomorrow, time permitting ....

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page