We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Views: 864

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have one that is put away, so I cannot compare it, but I do know that she personalizes and adds the year when signing.  I will say that it doesn’t look right, but I could be wrong.

No from me. Doesn't seem written in her usual flow, not round enough, the narrowness of the space between the letters seems too irregular, especially between the e and the m in Temple. The S seems off, too.

This is a photocopy of the signed item. I deal with an elderly gentleman who does not use a computer. He has collected since his childhood. He photocopies the autographs I am interested in and sends me the copies through the mail ( he is old school). This way I can do my own research and study before buying.

This is signed on top of a poor scan. 

No, this is just a photocopy…. If you go through all of the items I posted some have the stock answer in the comments(like this one) the posts that don’t have the write up about the photocopies are pictures of the actual signed pieces themselves.

If he's elderly and has collected since childhood, why are most photos signed in Sharpie?

I like this question. Perhaps you'll get an answer - I have not been able to achive that.

Hi Eric 

Your little jest escapes me.

The autographs I have posted could have been obtained at any time (depending on the celebrity) sharpies have been around since the 60’s and many of the people I have listed lived into at least the 1980’s (babe Ruth was in pencil) as well as hank Williams ….patsy cline was in ballpoint etc.

So they are almost all bad by chance? Wow. "Babe Ruth" could be written in Italian gold for the "Bambino"- it's still just a forgery IMO.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

RSS

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service