goswannies wrote:

luckyas13canbe wrote:A random photo which is unsigned is not a success, sent out by a pleb and nothing to do with the celebrity who has been written to. I at no point commented on anything you posted, though I also believe PPs are pointless. As for SFM etc... talk about a waste of time, and I have no idea why that sort of thing excites anyone.

Ah my apologies ... you were responding to the original "success" post? My mistake.

One use of PPs or SFM is that they might be able to be used to varify a success ... though I guess they could be used by forgers too. Worse still, when they appear on eBay & are passed off as originals. IMO SFM should stamp or print StudioFanMail on the back or front of the picture so that it's clear that it's not an original.

luckyas13canbe wrote:A random photo which is unsigned is not a success, sent out by a pleb and nothing to do with the celebrity who has been written to. I at no point commented on anything you posted, though I also believe PPs are pointless. As for SFM etc... talk about a waste of time, and I have no idea why that sort of thing excites anyone.

goswannies wrote:

luckyas13canbe wrote:This is not a success.

Thanks for your reply luckyas13canbe ...

Just to clarify ... which bit wasn't a success? The bookplate that was provided by Dame Julie (or her publicist) & certainly signed by Dame Julie so that it could be stuck into my book (it costs a lot to mail a book to the US from overseas, you know). So that's a success in anyone's terms I'd think. Particularly when I wanted a bookplate for the book.

The two pre-printed photos are more successful than getting nothing back or getting an unsigned photo that others have reported. Heck, there's a whole section on this site for people who write to StudioFanMail to happily report "successful" pre-prints.

& via venues are certainly successes ... although clearly not at the reported address ... & my point was that if someone desperately wants a signed photo of Dame Julie, perhaps via venue might be a good option.

But if none of that helps in YOUR opinion then ignore my post.

luckyas13canbe wrote:This is not a success.

shaun wrote:I sent a letter and SAE to Julie on: 17th December 2012, and today I recieved this unsigned photo back, plus a note from Julie's PA saying ' she can't sign'. its sad but understandable though.

address I used was:
Julie Andrews,
PO Box 491668,
Los Angeles
CA 90049-8668
USA