Fanmail.biz

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

Here are the pics:

Hi shaun

Thank you for your feedback Great Success

You have been added to the list for the $10 gift certificate.

Julie Andrews on Fanmail.biz | Previous Feedback(s) Received

Fanmail

Dang. That sucks. However, that's is a very nice letter that they enclosed with it. At least you got an explanation!

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

I have had 2 pre-printed photos sent from that address & one originally signed bookplate.

Julie does, however, signed via venue. She signed 3 photos for me (even though I only asked for one - the others were for Nicholas Hammond to sign & they both signed them).

She is a good signer ... under the right circumstances

This is not a success.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

100% agree, too many people who are inexperienced can be fooled

I think the forum should just be grateful that Julie Andrews is sending out formal letters to address her reason for not signing instead of having her secretaries sign for her!