by J-Wonder4 » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:37 am
ShiftyHenry wrote:J-Wonder4 wrote:ShiftyHenry wrote:I don't want to give the impression that I'm an expert or anything, but Ghostbusters is a big focus in my autograph collecting...that said, I've gotten Dan IP and TTM on several different items and occasions, based on the picture you provided, it doesn't look authentic to me. Too many things just look off. Just my opinion.
Really? That's kind of a surprise to me. What looks off in your opinion?
I'd need to see a better picture to be totally sure, but the A and Y in Aykroyd....the general spacing of the graph and the "Ray" at the bottom. I very well could be wrong. I certainly hope it's real, he hasn't signed TTM for a couple years, it'd be nice to know he's back at it.
I just added a better picture of the signature to the link (btw, I sent away for this in about mid-2010 and received it in about mid-2011):
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nkgvx0umfstuqbb/0TWbeS1zxg
I shone a flashlight on it so that the signature would be more visible. I am very new to the hobby, and I have gotten most of my autographs IP, so authenticity has not been a problem before. However, I am fairly certain that I can deduce this:
1). It is not a PP because (as I mentioned earlier), the pen falters slightly in the "D" in Dan and in the big loop at the end of the signature.)
2). It is not an auto-pen. An auto-pen (from what I've heard) is generally most recognizable if the pressure of the pen is the same all the way through. Because there are some darker dots in this signature, I think I can safely say that this is not an auto-pen.
So that leaves two realistic possibilities:
1). It is signed by Dan Aykroyd (I really hope it is!).
2). It is a secretarial signature.
So with the better picture to look at, what do you think about all of that? If it is authentic, it will be one of the best in my short, but growing collection.
[quote="ShiftyHenry"][quote="J-Wonder4"][quote="ShiftyHenry"]I don't want to give the impression that I'm an expert or anything, but Ghostbusters is a big focus in my autograph collecting...that said, I've gotten Dan IP and TTM on several different items and occasions, based on the picture you provided, it doesn't look authentic to me. Too many things just look off. Just my opinion.[/quote]
Really? That's kind of a surprise to me. What looks off in your opinion?[/quote]
I'd need to see a better picture to be totally sure, but the A and Y in Aykroyd....the general spacing of the graph and the "Ray" at the bottom. I very well could be wrong. I certainly hope it's real, he hasn't signed TTM for a couple years, it'd be nice to know he's back at it.[/quote]
I just added a better picture of the signature to the link (btw, I sent away for this in about mid-2010 and received it in about mid-2011):
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nkgvx0umfstuqbb/0TWbeS1zxg
I shone a flashlight on it so that the signature would be more visible. I am very new to the hobby, and I have gotten most of my autographs IP, so authenticity has not been a problem before. However, I am fairly certain that I can deduce this:
1). It is not a PP because (as I mentioned earlier), the pen falters slightly in the "D" in Dan and in the big loop at the end of the signature.)
2). It is not an auto-pen. An auto-pen (from what I've heard) is generally most recognizable if the pressure of the pen is the same all the way through. Because there are some darker dots in this signature, I think I can safely say that this is not an auto-pen.
So that leaves two realistic possibilities:
1). It is signed by Dan Aykroyd (I really hope it is!).
2). It is a secretarial signature.
So with the better picture to look at, what do you think about all of that? If it is authentic, it will be one of the best in my short, but growing collection.
Upload your pictures here: Surf My Pictures | Google Photos | Imgbb | Tumblr | Imgur