Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rich on January 2, 2015 at 8:54am

I don't think that's exactly true.  Sometimes you can do a pretty good job of documenting in-person signatures, though it's not especially common for sure.

I think this is pretty conclusive.  Jodeci78 seems to really try to get good photographic proof, I believe sometimes at the expensive of not getting numerous items signed as many EBay sellers try to do.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Shirley-Manson-BAND-Signed-Garbage-Not-Your...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike White on January 2, 2015 at 9:26am

I have to disagree with that.

I see no proof that the item in the top image is the item being signed in the bottom image.

Looking solely at the facts demonstrated by those pictures, all that's being proven is that they got an album signed by the band and they're selling an album with signatures allegedly from the band that's close, if not exactly, like the album that was photographed being signed by the band.

What's not being proven is that they're the same album or that the album for sale was signed by the band. There's no proof of provenance or chain of custody.

Going one step further, you'll notice that, due to the limitations of technology & the medium, you can't make out the details of the signatures in the photos where you see their faces and you see no distinguishing characteristics of the signer in the photos where you can see the details of the signature.

It's a leap of faith to look past the obvious disconnects--the same leap of faith that would be taken if the pictures weren't there.

It would clearly be a lot of work to stage things of this nature (especially when Photoshop is so easily accessible), so, yes, it's highly unlikely. But the Florida forgers aged baseballs in bags of dog food. So I don't think there's really anything that can be written off as being too much of a hassle or too outlandish for someone determined to sell a forged autograph.

It may assuage some concerns from people who are inclined to trust the seller, but, as I said, it proves nothing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on January 2, 2015 at 9:29am

I guess if you think the best photographic proof is worthless, there's no reason to debate you further.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on January 2, 2015 at 9:35am

I'm not at the end of the spectrum where photographic proof is a must.  I'm also not at the end where I think it's garbage (pun intended).  I will agree that it's frequently misused, often by forgery sellers. and that it often shows nothing conclusive.  I think there are sellers who try to do a good job of documenting what they get in-person and often succeed.  It's not entirely necessary, as their inventory is good and their reputation is solid as it is, but it does give some more skeptical buyers peace of mind, the same way that a PSA sticker (unfortunately) does.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Null on January 2, 2015 at 9:08am

If I'm getting someone IP, I'm not selling it, so I could care less about "Photo Proof". When I see "Photo Proof" on any eBay item I immediately think it's a forgery as opposed to being authentic, as that is a very common scam that forgery sellers use. When buying, it is all about the signature, not the photos, not the stickers/certificates it comes with.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PICTURE PROOF AUTOGRAPHS on January 2, 2015 at 11:41am

I have to agree with Rich, though taking a photo of the celebrity at the time of signing is not common with most autograph collectors. I don't understand why. To me, Even the best of authenticators make mistakes, so taking a photo is the best way a collector can help to authenticate an autograph. I do understand why some disagee. Because if they did agree that it was the best thing that a collector of autographs could do to authenticate their autograph at the time of signing, then they would actually be stating that their collection wasn't worth what they hoped it was.

As for Mr. White and Ryan, I have been collecting In Person Picture Proof Autographs for over 30 years with over 5,000 Picture Proof Autograph. I always hear from collectors, "I don't need to take a picture, It's going into my collection, I don't need proof." " I will never sell it!"  or the one I like the most is "Pictures don't prove anything, I always see dealers selling Forgeries on EBAY with photos".

That is why it is most important that the autograph collector do everything in his power to insure that his autograph has as little question that it is authentic. Sure you have to be carefull of bad dealers taking advantage of collectors by selling autographs with Photos.

Ryan, I am like you, But I think that the autograph must be a forgery if I don't see a photo with it. I would not trust a autograph that did not come with the celebrity signing from a in-person autograph incounter. What were you doing when you received the autograph, were you just so star stuck to take out your phone and take a picture? I know it is hard to do with crowds and security. I never said it was easy, It just matters how much time, money, and effort a collector wants and willing to put in his collection. It is a lot less effort not to take a photo of every autograph being signed.

As for selling, you might not plan on selling your autograph, but all autographs get sold at one time or another, if not by you, then maybe your love ones after you happen to leave this world. I know I want my love ones to have the easy time to get top dollar for the autographs that I leave when I kick the bucket. Or I always hear the stories how the grieving wife is disguised because she is not getting the amount of money selling the autographs that her husband said they were worth just because there was no proof of authenticity.

Besides, The photo helps makes a better display of the autograph!!!

One last thing. The one good thing about collectting is that a collector can collect any which way that makes him happy!!! I , myself, would not be happy to collect autographs without taking a photo of every autograph that I am lucky enough to obtain. That is just me and I have learned on this web site, the very few that do. I can only suggest that you do to the ones that don't.

May Your Pens Be Sharp and Full of Ink, Your Cameria Be Steady and Your Actions Quick!!!!

Happy Collectting!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on January 2, 2015 at 12:51pm

Well, here's my thing: If a celebrity's signature is so bad that it can only be "authenticated" with photo proof, I'd rather not have it at all - unless I got it myself and there's some sentimental value associated with it.  Unfortunately, so many modern "signatures" are completely inauthenticable (is that a word?).  I generally tell people to stay away bad examples, regardless of the provenance.  Think twice about your purchase if you can't possibly authenticate the signature based on the signature itself.   

That being said, I realize that there is a market for every celebrity's signature, regardless of how bad it looks.  So, there are plenty of instances where photo proof and the source's reputation (i.e. the collector) is valuable.  If there's an autograph you just have to have, and it's basically no more than an indistinct scribble, trusting the source and having solid photo proof might be all you have to go on.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PICTURE PROOF AUTOGRAPHS on January 2, 2015 at 2:21pm

Rich, it is impossible to know if a celebrity's signature is going to be so bad that it can only be authenticated by a photo proof because it is inauthenticable until after you have recieved it.

I have recieved a Dale Earnhardt Jr. autograph after he had a few Budweisers, in the middle of a crowd of a Joleit, Ill. Nascar Fest a few years ago. His autograph probably would not pass as authentic by any authenticators means had I not taken the 3 pictures of him signing it.

That is why I take a piture of every autograph I recieve being signed, you never know how it well turn out till after you recieve it. I also try to use a 35-mm cameria so I can cut the negatives strips, tape the right negative to it's appropriate photo and place it to it's signature. When I decide to sell or my wife sells everything after I am gone, The buyer will get the item, the autograph, the picture, and the negative for a "Picture Proof Autograph"

Just think what the world of collecting autographs would be like if it was general practice for every autograph collector to take a picture of every autograph being signed. With all the bad dealers, Forgeriers, and EBAY sellers selling over 80% of their autographs as forgeries, how can any autograph collector not try his best to help authenicate his own autograph by just taking a picture of it being signed. I feel If the autograph collector don't, then he is not part of the solution of the war against Forgeries, but part of the problem.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on January 2, 2015 at 2:24pm

"Rich, it is impossible to know if a celebrity's signature is going to be so bad that it can only be authenticated by a photo proof because it is inauthenticable until after you have recieved it."

Have you seen Al Pacino's signature?  How about Meg Ryan?  You KNOW you'll get crap from them. ;)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page