Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on March 3, 2020 at 9:15am

Atypical.  It is also unlikely that it was signed during the time period that you have mentioned.  It is more typical of something that may have been signed ten years ago.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by R3to on March 3, 2020 at 9:27am

Thanks for the quick reply. Attached is a photo with the date on the back.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 3, 2020 at 9:25am

R3to,

It's signed a very low-quality JPG photo, likely downloaded from the internet. Look at all the artifacts, that gravel look when you click the image and view it full size. The signature is sharp and clean, which means it's not from the signed photo scanned to sell. 

I'm going to tell another member like Mike, who knows Connery well, to take a look at it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by R3to on March 3, 2020 at 9:32am

many thanks for this information!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TQ on March 3, 2020 at 12:07pm

Unfortunately I’m not confident in this one either. To me this looks to be signed slowly (as if copying) and features a number of oddities which do not feature in any of the modern signed photos I’m confident in. The Sean is particularly spread out and the first half of Connery is, imo, wrong. It just doesn’t feel right in my experience. I think the date too says everything you need to know, Connery has pretty much been a non signer in the last decade and certainly has not signed with the attention to each letter on the street for a long time. Sorry man! Any chance of a refund?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by R3to on March 3, 2020 at 10:54pm

Thanks for the information. I have now once contacted the seller with the allegations.

• ▶ Reply