daniel radcliffe

[seamus]

It´s AUTHNETIC.
I compared it with my Dan´s autograph

So I´m sure that it is authentic autograph {thumb2}

[lizane]

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.

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.

Thanks,
zanne

[karra28]

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.

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.

Thanks,
zanne

Zanne,as always YOU think right! deam you are a good moderator one thing i always think when base my own opinions is: where it was postmarked from(if the celeb was there and has a show there),the signature(the letters in the begging and the end)shapes and such

/Georgios

[Reav]

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 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?

[hsmremixworld]

Its NOT secretarial. It is His. ITS REAL

[Mr Kennedy]

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?

I agree with you here, comparing the autograph in question to known authentic IP examples, it doesnt jump out as authentic to me.

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.

[lizane]

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.

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! So if you don't like/understand my opinion, then you could rather say why you disagree instead of pointing out my "mistakes". {thumb2} It's not like you can't see the autograph also, but I try to at least give an opinion - take it or leave it.

So now I'm going to post pics and reasons:

Here's Daniel's newest preprint photo he sends out TTM:


An in person autograph from AutographWorld:


Now comparing above known authentic examples to the one in this topic, I personally think the whole "Daniel" part looks pretty good to me. The "Radcliffe" part is a bit difficult to see so if Nathan could post a bigger scan, that would be great. {thumb2} But from what I could see, it seems to have certain characteristics that match authentic examples, such as the "R" and that little connection between the "d" and "c", but I would love to see a better scan as, if it's secretarial, I am pretty sure the "Radcliffe" part would give it away. It's pretty simple to sign "Daniel".

As for the younger Harry Potter signature, I really don't see it - if anyone could please be more specific that would be great. As far as I could see, it compares more to the new TTM preprint than older ones.

The only thing (which I totally forgot about in my previous post ) is that Daniel isn't very keen to sign "Harry Potter" items, although it's not like he doesn't sign any, just not quite often. I would've thought he would rather send a preprint than signing a "Harry Potter" item... That's one thing that makes me wonder a bit.

This is a difficult one to compare as his autograph is quite easy to forge, but you can compare to the pics we've posted in this thread and everyone can decide what they want to believe. {thumb2} I personally don't know anymore, I would like to see if there will be more successes from this address.

Thanks,
zanne

[lizane]

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

[Mr Kennedy]

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

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.

Ive not had time to look too much at the pic above - I'd still like a clearer scan - but to me the one in this thread just looks too clean, too deliberate, I have my....suspicions...about the one in question. Ive seen some of the other successes, and they - to me - look different than the one in this thread, and at first glance look more likely to be authentic than the one in this thread.

I may post again later with some more thoughts...

[lizane]

Thanks Andy. {thumb2} I agree with what you said, as I mentioned in my previous post, I do wonder why he suddenly signs Harry Potter pictures when he tries to avoid them. I mean, his autograph sure is easy to forge. I wonder for how long he'll sign via venue as I can't imagine him signing hundreds of photos after each show until February 2009.