I compared it with my Dan´s autograph
![Image](http://i35.tinypic.com/n2hb9w.jpg)
So I´m sure that it is authentic autograph
![Thumb Up {up}](./images/smilies/icon_thumbs_up.gif)
I'm sorry if this sounds rude but it's so cliché to say an autograph is secretarial because they spent weeks to sign just like the celebrity. :neutral: It's actually not true because it's not an agent, etc. job to even sign autographs (except if they specificly hire someone as in Keira Knightley or John Travolta's case). One should rather base your opinions on:Reav wrote:I think most of you forget one thing. In case of a high-profile actor/actress, the secretary spends WEEKS matching his/her autograph. Now although I am no expert on Radcliffe's autograph, I tend to agree with mharm2k6. The signature looks too much "young Harry Potter" to me.
Zanne,as always YOU think right! deam you are a good moderatorzanne wrote:I'm sorry if this sounds rude but it's so cliché to say an autograph is secretarial because they spent weeks to sign just like the celebrity. :neutral: It's actually not true because it's not an agent, etc. job to even sign autographs (except if they specificly hire someone as in Keira Knightley or John Travolta's case). One should rather base your opinions on:Reav wrote:I think most of you forget one thing. In case of a high-profile actor/actress, the secretary spends WEEKS matching his/her autograph. Now although I am no expert on Radcliffe's autograph, I tend to agree with mharm2k6. The signature looks too much "young Harry Potter" to me.
- the availability of the celebrity
- where it was postmarked from
- the size of the autograph
- the shape of the letters
- curls, loops, etc. in the autograph
- always try to compare to all types of autographs: in person, via venue, preprints, known secretarials, etc.
Thanks,
zanne
I do not disagree with the above mentioned points. However in this case, the only thing we can do is compare the autographs to a known authentics. And by doing that, I am not completely sure this is a success. Perhaps the OP can post a better picture of the autograph?zanne wrote:I'm sorry if this sounds rude but it's so cliché to say an autograph is secretarial because they spent weeks to sign just like the celebrity. :neutral: It's actually not true because it's not an agent, etc. job to even sign autographs (except if they specificly hire someone as in Keira Knightley or John Travolta's case). One should rather base your opinions on:
- the availability of the celebrity
- where it was postmarked from
- the size of the autograph
- the shape of the letters
- curls, loops, etc. in the autograph
- always try to compare to all types of autographs: in person, via venue, preprints, known secretarials, etc.
I agree with you here, comparing the autograph in question to known authentic IP examples, it doesnt jump out as authentic to me.Reav wrote: I do not disagree with the above mentioned points. However in this case, the only thing we can do is compare the autographs to a known authentics. And by doing that, I am not completely sure this is a success. Perhaps the OP can post a better picture of the autograph?
Well, I was just giving my quick opinion and I was going to come back to this topic with a full comparison... At least I said why it could be authentic, so far no one has really gave a good enough reason why it could be secretarial or authentic!Mr Kennedy wrote:As far as the messy end of his autograph goes, I dont know how anyone can say that its authentic because of that, as the scan is so poor that you can't even make out that part of the autograph, so saying it matches one of his traits is misleading. I really dont see how anyone can claim the autograph in question is "messy" either, when its quite clearly far from it.
Just my opinion.
I think the fact that Harry Potter stuff is coming back signed is a big point of interest, he doesnt seem to like signing HP stuff, and very rarely does. So for him to be happily signing HP stuff, for me, is a little concerning. Obviously on its own its not enough to say "its secretarial", which I'm not doing anyway.zanne wrote:Ok, to Andy & Georgios - I've deleted your recent posts in this topic, guys, lets stay on topic and together decide whether Dan via venue successes are real or not. {thumb2} There are 2 new feedback posted from him in the "Via Venue Feedback" forum so this is going to become a hot topic now.![]()
So, please post meaningful stuff here and don't just say "it's authentic" or "it's secretarial" - that's childish and doesn't prove anything.Post a detailed description with pictures!!
Let's keep it civil,
zanne
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests