No good unfortunately
Hey Mike, what are your reasons? Can you give some details...
ZZ, your request for a reason from Mike T suggests you think it might be real - what are your reasons for thinking so?
Hey Eric... I was just wondering why he thinks it's no good... I mean what kind of answer is that, no good unfortunately, ... is that just his opinion or is that based on some type of forensic findings? You know what I mean?
Hi ZZ, that is the same answer, maybe longer, than I would and do give to someone not skilled in autographs. It could have been just "no". Mike T may choose to show or discuss "why" or not - I don't know. Sometimes I do. Forensics have no place here. I suggest more self education and reading. You should - well, I start with the presumption that EVERYTHING is fake and move to prove it authentic. Good luck :)
I was going to quote this but I see it was written to you just yesterday. Perhaps read it again - click the link below:
ZZ, not trying to be difficult but to make an analogy, explaining why an autograph is not good to someone with limited autograph knowledge would be akin to trying to explain the difference between Impressionism and Realism to someone who has not yet opened their eyes or even seen the outside world. Any explanation would be lacking at best, unintelligible at worst. Why not make your case and state why you think they are real?
ZZ - looking just at the Frank Oz Mike posted and yours. I have made this side by side comparison for you. They are obviously different. But it is more than appearances etc. Experienced collectors know that Frank Oz loved to inscribe and those inscriptions are quite often removed. But on your poster the placement of his signature would not allow an inscription. This alone suggests a problem and is something you can see now.
Click for full image: