We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Is this a preprint? Help wanted!
Hi everyone!
Would appreciate your help, does these photos prove that this James Earl Jones autograph is a preprint? Or can it still be a genuine signed photo?
The reason for asking is that a buyer of this graph is now claiming it’s a preprint and I would appreciate some other opinions before issuing him a refund.
Thank you for helping!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jason H on
-
Hard to tell through photos but from what I see, it looks like a preprint. Im not familiar with his TTM habits in the past. He signed authentically for me in 2006 and I never bothered to keep track after that. Have a look around and see if you can find one exactly like it somewhere.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Hi my friend!
From the images, preprint. They could be sharper.
-
-
I had a quick look at previous habits on Fanmail.biz and from that, his TTM habits seemed to be either he signed authentically or sent a note stating he was either too busy to sign or that he is no longer signing. There are no instances of preprints but I dont consider this source a complete history of his habits
http://m.fanmail.biz/feedback/James_Earl_Jones/1.html
I have come across a few photos where it was difficult to tell at first glance but a glossy photo like this should be easy in person. Most likely its a preprint but I wonder where it came from
-
-
Indeed. It could be a "homemade" preprint/copy print.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug S on
-
It's hard to imagine someone signing that super glossy photo and the ink coming out that clean with no smudges or blobs. Doesn't look live to me either.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on
-
Looks like a preprint, Cogo. Sorry.
-
Permalink Reply by Cogo on
-
Thank you guys! But what makes this wonderful hobby so much ”fun” is the difference of opinions… ;-)
I also asked on RACC and got completly different answers. Here everyone says preprinted, there everyone says real ink. Normally you’ll get a couple of mixed results, but in this case it really is 100% says no and 100% says yes! Although several says that they have to see it in-person to tell for sure, which I totally understand!
I know this is very difficult to tell just by looking on photos. Is there anything the RACC members say (screenprints below) that makes any sense to you guys?
And I’m absolutly not looking to ”start a fight” between two groups, I just want so much help possible to handle this situation in the best way possible! Thank you once again for your help!
-
Permalink Reply by Eddy on
-
It's funny. I saw this thread earlier today and thought to myself that it looks like it was hand signed based upon the provided photos. I don't know the signature at all and didn't feel qualified to comment because of that...but it didn't look like a preprint to me either.
-
-
Interesting. The 1st comment (about the circled part) i believe is the photo, especially the blacks of the "ink", showing through because there is not enough light glare. I dont believe I see signs of actual ink.
2nd comment about the "faded J" a preprint is a reproduction of an original. If the original photo had a faded J. Of course the preprint will as well. Thats a silly comment.
3rd comment "known preprint?" Does anyone have access to starting on here and can skim thru the photos? I havent been a member for a while
You are right in that it has to be seen in person to know 100%
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
