Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Autographtastic on March 22, 2020 at 2:45pm

6. Please see the images below for examples of the 'Q' in six genuine McQueen's. They are either an example of the Q curving to the left before the baseline, or the tip of the Q not having any sharp points or quick changes in direction - in some cases they demonstrate both of these traits. 

7. Whilst the downstroke in the T is straighter more times than not, there are still instances when this isn't the case:

In conclusion: although Martin/Paul Fraser's examples may not be the most standard cases of McQueen's autograph, if one looks carefully they can find genuine exemplars where - perhaps with the exception of the crossover in the M - all of the traits Steve has questioned are present. I still believe they have a good shot at being authentic. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 6, 2020 at 11:57am

Leaving Frasiers aside as it doesn't align well with the others from PSA/R&R, the baselines are quite different and the handling of the last name, esp the last 4 letters...I'd pass. Wonder why it went so cheap...

The OP and Frasiers in quick overlay below - don't like either:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on February 6, 2020 at 12:14pm

I agree 100% with this. Not one I’d want in my collection. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Autographtastic on February 6, 2020 at 12:26pm

I believe the OP and Paul Fraser's are in the same hand (emphasised by Eric's nice graphic). If they aren't genuine, then they must be by the same forger. Is Paul Fraser Collectibles owned by the same guy who created the now defunct Frasers Autographs? I'm presuming it is and thought his business had a pretty good reputation. 

I accept there are differences between parts of the OP and the PSA/RR examples, but you could also find differences amongst the PSA/RR group. Having looked through all his autographs that sold with RR, McQueen's autograph varies hugely. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 6, 2020 at 12:34pm

Exactly, too close for comfort. There are more similarities in the PSA/R&R group than differences, from the obvious baseline for both names to the way the bottom of the "u" is formed, the lean on the "M" etc. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Autographtastic on February 6, 2020 at 12:38pm

Here are three examples showing the last four letters in "McQueen". The images on the left and right sold at RR. The middle image is the OP. If you asked someone who hadn't seen them before which autograph is the odd one out, they'd almost certainly say the image on the left. Do you not think the OP and the right image look fairly similar?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 6, 2020 at 12:41pm

See point and form of and at bottom of "u". Middle is clearly odd man out IMO. Middle lacks loops as well...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Autographtastic on February 6, 2020 at 12:46pm

If you think the left is more similar to the right than the OP, then I have to respectfully disagree. Equally you could look at the spacing and formation of the final 'u' (which is technically meant to be the n). The OP and right image are similar, and the left is the odd one out. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I' convinced it might be a genuine autograph. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 6, 2020 at 12:57pm

The first "u" looks like a "v" in the exemplars, OP is totally different. Obviously there is much variation in his hand, but the intent and form come through. A forgery should look like the real thing - in this case it only matches the Frasiers example and not in a nice way. What matter spacing when the baseline, I should say baselines for the OP and Frasier, is completely different in the PSA/R&R exemplars?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 6, 2020 at 1:03pm

Look at the lower "loop" in the "S" as it makes its turn to the "t" in the OP and the PSA/R&R exemplars. It only matches Frasiers in form...again.

Also, the mess of the "M" in the OP - the PSA/R&R exemplars are legible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Autographtastic on February 6, 2020 at 3:15pm

The "M" is probably the area I most agree with you. Although, once again I'd point to the huge variety of ways he formed the "M". There are some that aren't that far away from the OP/Fraser's examples and others that are totally different. 

Permalink Reply by Autographtastic on February 6, 2020 at 3:11pm

You make some interesting points, but I'm still not totally convinced. Here are three example from RR where the first "u" looks more like a "u" than a "v". 

• ▶ Reply

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