And here I apologized for appearing lazy and snarky but to "seek and ye shall find" as I saw no reason to say much after looking at the results of such a search.
As a novice collector, that would be a good approach. Virtually everything I see from GA ranges from highly suspect to obviously fake. Once you familiarize yourself with any particular signature(s) to consider yourself confident in your own knowledge and judgement, you can make the signature one the signature alone.
But avoidance of GA altogether is a good practice for newer collectors. I consider myself competent at collecting, and I usually don't ever give GA much attention. When I do, I tend to see exactly what I expect.
Unfortunately everyone 'sees' whatever they are 'expecting' to see. At any given moment, I can find tons of good GA examples of signatures. Also at any given moment, I can find many bad PSA and JSA certified signatures. Your blanket comments only work for companies such as GFA where I personally have never seen an autograph that I would deem authentic.
I thought the real purpose here is not supposed to be the attempt to bash companies you might have a vendetta against, but to help educate other collectors on individual autographs in question. In this particular Andrew Lincoln case, it looks just like what I have obtained in person, and PSA has certified this signature numerous times as is easily seen on eBay.
Telling new collectors to avoid GA is good advice. At best, their sticker devalues the signature, even in the even that it's authentic. My "vendetta" against them is based on their mass authentication of forgeries.
My goodness I am so sorry. I totally misinterpreted. I care for my mom who also suffers - I am deeply sorry once again. Please forgive?
With Andrew Lincoln I like to look for a personalization, subtle signs of a removed personalization, or an additional inscription. He often personalized and added inscriptions to through-the-mail responses, and my belief is those are generally deemed to be authentic.