Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 10, 2018 at 6:34pm

While that appears good, it looks good, but 1991-1997?, it has nothing to do with 2013 from what I know. Looks earlier if genuine. MarkG? Anything dated after 2008 is RARE. 

2013:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VonHammer on April 10, 2018 at 6:43pm

Thanks Eric! I was going by this 2013 that to me looked the closest. But obviously without the date

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 6.41.14 PM.png, 73 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 10, 2018 at 7:09pm

That "could" be good. Closer to 1991-1994. I'd need a better scan. The 2013 you showed is good. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VonHammer on April 10, 2018 at 7:34pm

This is the best that i can do for a scan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VonHammer on April 10, 2018 at 7:55pm

Now that I've looked at the sellers other items they're often presented in exactly the same way! Here's a "Robert De Niro". So have to say I'm more than a little skeptical now. Damn..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 10, 2018 at 8:01pm

I'd avoid this seller.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on April 10, 2018 at 8:14pm

Think I noticed an Audrey Hepburn signature with the same presentation. Probably same seller. Very bad.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 11, 2018 at 5:48pm

Those are very different animals. The dateless "2013" you showed and the 2013 I showed. Does that look like ink?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by goodcat on April 10, 2018 at 9:04pm

If i may be so bold to add...

I looked at it with a magnifying glass and the ink is blotchy and kinks. Not smooth like a typical Bowie. This one looks slowly and deliberately done.

Notice the big kink at the middle of the B when it comes off the top loop. A sign of confusion to me. 

Also... are there any other examples where the OWIE goes vertical like a tornado?

And of course the most obvious.... why no date?

Personally I would lean towards bad Bowie

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VonHammer on April 10, 2018 at 9:17pm

Here's an authentic tornado from 91! And I've seen a few without a date. I liked it at first and thought it might be a later example although Eric said that it could possibly pass for a mid 90's. Anyway, the seller has too many other signatures presented the same way which makes things look very dodgy. When i mentioned this to the seller their line of communication suddenly went very quiet. 

Thanks for your advice goodcat. This is one i no longer have any interest in

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by goodcat on April 10, 2018 at 9:29pm

thx for that nice example VH

My input on the fact the seller has them as cut sigs and laminated could be that he is trying to emulate PSA/DNA and a few others who slab their items. I wouldn't necessarily make this out to mean they are fake. 

The sig has to stand on it's own and the packaging is far down the list of importance. That's the subjective part IMO.

I'm not saying this Bowie is Fake, but I am saying there are issues that make me not like it as I stated. Especially the bottom loop formation of the B. It's not smooth

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VonHammer on April 10, 2018 at 9:50pm

I certainly see what you mean about the bottom B loop. And the first part of the B, the vertical part, doesnt look quite right either, I'd love to see a video of Bowie actually writing his signature. That might help us determine good from bad a little more easily.

I dont like all these cut and laminated signatures. If you look at the others this seller has for sale they all seem to be written on the same paper! With that in mind, the strange B, the no date, and the fact that this hasnt sold at less than $200 yet i think it's best avoided

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page