Fanmail.biz

Also on September 13, 2011, I sent LOR, SASE, 2 8 1/2x 11 photos and 1 4 x 6 to Mr. Travolta at the data base address:

John Travolta
P.O. Box 3560
Santa Barbara CA 93130

I received my 3 photos back + 1 he included of Danny Zuko with the T-Birds, all signed, 1 personalized. The one with Danny and Sandy I am going to send to Olivia Newton-John. Wish me luck. These came yesterday, September 26, 2011...here they are:

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127 ... volta1.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127 ... volta2.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127 ... volta3.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127 ... volta4.jpg

As always secretarials.

You know what, and for the record, I'm really okay with secretarials and the thrill that comes from bursting one's bubble must be overwhelming many of you with delight. Here's what I know...forgery is a crime in the United States, so if someone else is signing John Travolta's name (or any celebrity for that matter) then it counts as an authorized signature, otherwise it would be against the law. This was pointed out to me years ago after stumbling across a signed photo of Lucille Ball by a philography expert. So, many of us are happy to receive our pictures back, k. But thanks to all the ones who have to point out they are secretarial. You remind of the bullies in the sandbox and personally, I am not a fan. Thanks. I, and I dare speak for other collectors here, am okay with an AUTHORIZED signature.

locowski wrote:As always secretarials.

Oh, my god. Don't talk about something you know nothing about. These are NOT sec's. A couple of years ago I wrote to John and asked for some signed photos for my charity auction - June Travolta, which is one of is relatives wrote me a letter stating that she was sending me a few signed photos that John signed as well as signed photo dedicated to me. So, that I would have proof when I was selling them for the charity.

The signature is the EXACT same as it is now, the writing in the inscriptions is the EXACT same as it is now. These are AUTHENTIC signatures, they are NOT secs. His management cannot lie about that, these are for a fact very real.

So, stop saying they are secs. Jeez.

Emmylousboy wrote:You know what, and for the record, I'm really okay with secretarials and the thrill that comes from bursting one's bubble must be overwhelming many of you with delight. Here's what I know...forgery is a crime in the United States, so if someone else is signing John Travolta's name (or any celebrity for that matter) then it counts as an authorized signature, otherwise it would be against the law. This was pointed out to me years ago after stumbling across a signed photo of Lucille Ball by a philography expert. So, many of us are happy to receive our pictures back, k. But thanks to all the ones who have to point out they are secretarial. You remind of the bullies in the sandbox and personally, I am not a fan. Thanks. I, and I dare speak for other collectors here, am okay with an AUTHORIZED signature.

Actually, I don't believe it's illegal for a secretary to sign for celebrities, as far as that I learned from someone there are different rules, I believe they have someone 'assigned' for this particiular job, so that they CAN sign the said celebrities name without any problems.

However, the photos you sent John and got back signed - they are VERY authentic, so congrats!

vivalakayla wrote:

locowski wrote:As always secretarials.

Oh, my god. Don't talk about something you know nothing about. These are NOT sec's. A couple of years ago I wrote to John and asked for some signed photos for my charity auction - June Travolta, which is one of is relatives wrote me a letter stating that she was sending me a few signed photos that John signed as well as signed photo dedicated to me. So, that I would have proof when I was selling them for the charity.

The signature is the EXACT same as it is now, the writing in the inscriptions is the EXACT same as it is now. These are AUTHENTIC signatures, they are NOT secs. His management cannot lie about that, these are for a fact very real.

So, stop saying they are secs. Jeez.

Peoples on Fanmail.biz always say thet he send out secetarials ask Stefano. Not long time ago he was sure that his signetue is not real. One time on person saied that Travolta send out sec a years. His menager is possibly from Scientology Church so his words it not proof.

I don't usually wade into these, but since it's already in full flow I would like somebody to clear something up for me.

I find it very, very hard to understand why June Travolta doesn't specifically say in the letter she sends out with charity requests that John Travolta signs them.

I've had several letters from secretaries, and without exception they all say specifically that "Len or Bill or Fred has signed your photograph for you...", not June Travolta's standard "On behalf of John Travolta, I would be happy to contribute an autographed item for your auction."

Now why wouldn't she want to word it like that, and shout it to the world, instead of which there's that timid, mousey little phraseology which sounds like it's been cooked up by somebody's legal department?

If anyone can answer that question for me then I'll believe it.

As far as I can see it's a brand. Calling it a "John Travolta autographed item" absolves them of any responsibility for what happens to it, whereas calling it an "item signed by John Travolta" would be fraudulent if either of them happens to know that it wasn't.

locowski wrote: Peoples on Fanmail.biz always say thet he send out secetarials ask Stefano. Not long time ago he was sure that his signetue is not real. One time on person saied that Travolta send out sec a years. His menager is possibly from Scientology Church so his words it not proof.

Wow. Learn how to type, first of all. And second of all, are you serious? Third of all, Stefano isn't the master of autographs. And fourth I highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt that John would send out sec signed photos for special needs children, which was what my charity was for.

HappinessStan wrote:I don't usually wade into these, but since it's already in full flow I would like somebody to clear something up for me.

I find it very, very hard to understand why June Travolta doesn't specifically say in the letter she sends out with charity requests that John Travolta signs them.

I've had several letters from secretaries, and without exception they all say specifically that "Len or Bill or Fred has signed your photograph for you...", not June Travolta's standard "On behalf of John Travolta, I would be happy to contribute an autographed item for your auction."

Now why wouldn't she want to word it like that, and shout it to the world, instead of which there's that timid, mousey little phraseology which sounds like it's been cooked up by somebody's legal department?

If anyone can answer that question for me then I'll believe it.

As far as I can see it's a brand. Calling it a "John Travolta autographed item" absolves them of any responsibility for what happens to it, whereas calling it an "item signed by John Travolta" would be fraudulent if either of them happens to know that it wasn't.

Did you not read my post? She said just that. I still have the letter,

It says: "On behalf of John Travolta, I would be happy to contribute an autographed item signed by John himself for your auction. We hope your event is a tremendous success and please feel free to let me know of anything that you may need in the future"

Sincerely,
June Travolta - In which she signed the letter, which is exactly why I kept it.


If i were to sell those photos of John for my charity, which I did do - and they went to an authenticator and they said it was fake, I would have gotten in trouble for selling a fake autograph - which would have screwed up my entire charity and would in the end take money away frommy cause. So I HIGHLY doubt they would lie about such a thing.

I don't think that those are secs, I sent
A LOR To his Agency adress and got a photo
Back signed, the signature looks exactly the same
On my photo as this one