Authenticity is Everything
Paul Mccartney Signed Silver Certificate
can I get some thoughts on this McCartney signature , I am on the fence with this one , leaning towards no !
Tags: 85528106, DNA, McCartney, PSA, certificate, dollar, mcardinals1, silver, sportssignatures03
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Thorsten Knublauch on
-
Horrific - nobody is perfect and having the autograph printed or autopenned on the dollar bill is especially with this kind of paper impossible to find out/analyze.
If this is already in the database -who should find the exact signature there?
The only claim I personally would say is that I think the size of the signature is too large on that note and would bring a red flag up with me - but without a chemical test (if at all) who to check the ink?
-
Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on
-
Good point. The signature is out of proportion. I would expect the authenticators to be familiar with the AutographFacts examples considering that they are prominent ones that could be chosen when looking for a signature to reproduce.
-
Permalink Reply by JDZelenka on
-
Forgers are getting fiendish with these reprints.
I had a bad experience in that I posted my fully signed photo on a discussion thread and the next thing I knew someone was selling prints of it on Ebay. Now whenever I show my signed photo people assume I have one of the hundreds of reprinted copies floating around
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
+1
-
Permalink Reply by Jason H on
-
8 years ago I bought a JSA certified Ghostbusters signed photo for $500 and it ended up being a preprint with a real JSA cert. I got my money back but it's something that always has to be checked. What I don't understand for eBay purposes, is if anyone selling a preprint as real, you can easily get your money back. but this is some crazy trickery that many people will miss
-
Permalink Reply by fab432 on
-
I emailed PSA and asked them for an explanation. Assuming they reply I will post their response.
-
-
Nice! Thanks for doing that. I hope you didn’t get an automated response saying that they’re unusually busy.
-
-
I found this in another discussion:
-
-
oh no... different pen - same position...
-
-
Aaaahhh! More ammo though. A 1957 bill? Why?
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on
-
1957 was the series but it was actually printed in 1963. So, it would be at the time of the Beatles is my guess why it was used. I just looked it up and actually these bills were apparently last printed in 1963.
-
-
I would put the autograph later than this
© 2025 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
