Peter Facinelli TTM Autograph Comparison

[lizane]

Hi all!

Peter Facinelli's TTM feedback has caused a lot of confusion about whether yours is authentic or secretarial. So, I searched up in person, TTM authentic, TTM secretarial and authentic via venue examples for you to compare to. It's quite easy to spot when you have an authentic Peter autograph or the usual secretarial, please read my guide below:

Authentic in person autographs from AutographWorld.com:


Authentic via venue success (received by prettycrazy4life on 9 February 2009):


TTM (address in database) authentic autographs:
The below autographs are all signed by Peter authentically, and were all received during 2009 (you can find all of these successes in the "Feedback" forum).




TTM (address in database) secretarial examples:
All of the below autographs were received during 2009, and are (unfortunately) all secretarial.


As you can see, there's a big difference between the TTM secretarial ones and authentic autographs of Peter. Most notably, in the "P" and the "Facinelli" part in his signature - Peter's authentic autograph is more flat while the secretarial ones are big and loopy. Also, the personalizations differ too - again, Peter has a more flat handwriting while the secretarials are neatly written (almost always) in all caps. In reality, Peter signs quite tiny and small, but the secretarials are very big signatures.

As I already said, it's easy to know whether your Peter Facinelli autograph is authentic or not, as there's many differences between the sec ones and actual authentic ones.

Hope this helps, and if you have any questions/want to contribute your authentic photos for comparison, please post here!

Good luck!

[twilightfixation]

Thanks for this! It really helped and now it's easy to tell the difference!
The one I received was a sec but I'm going to keep trying until I get a authentic one from him

[dani]

Hi Lizanne,
Once again your comparison topic is great
What about his latest TTM successes like this one
http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic ... 2&t=139169 or this one http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic ... 2&t=139177
I'm tending to authentic, but I'm not sure at all. It is less obvious then the ones received at the beginning of 2009.
What do you think??

[lizane]

Thank you twilightfixation and Dani, I'm glad you found this topic helpful!

Hi Lizanne,
Once again your comparison topic is great
What about his latest TTM successes like this one
http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic ... 2&t=139169 or this one http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic ... 2&t=139177
I'm tending to authentic, but I'm not sure at all. It is less obvious then the ones received at the beginning of 2009.
What do you think??

The latest ones are strange... Still, why would there be two different types of secretarials sent out? I think the first link is authentic (the "B" matches to the via venue success I posted above, and the signature matches good enough to the above authentic examples), but the second link is definitely secretarial though.

Sure, one would agrue that they're the same, but note the "Facinelli" part: in the secretarial one, the "acinelli" is not connected to the "F", whereas in the supposedly authentic one the "a" in "Facinelli" has a line that goes through the "F", and that part Peter always sign (it's how he stripes the "F"). So that's an important characteristic to look out for. Furthermore, again, the secretarial one is big and loopy, while the authentic one is more flat.It seems the secretary has picked up on how Peter signs, as it's becoming harder to tell the difference, but there's certain things you can't forge - everyone has their own way of signing, and that's Peter's way.

Hope this helps!

[Sammya]

Thank you twilightfixation and Dani, I'm glad you found this topic helpful!

Hi Lizanne,
Once again your comparison topic is great
What about his latest TTM successes like this one
http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic ... 2&t=139169 or this one http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic ... 2&t=139177
I'm tending to authentic, but I'm not sure at all. It is less obvious then the ones received at the beginning of 2009.
What do you think??

The latest ones are strange... Still, why would there be two different types of secretarials sent out? I think the first link is authentic (the "B" matches to the via venue success I posted above, and the signature matches good enough to the above authentic examples), but the second link is definitely secretarial though.

Sure, one would agrue that they're the same, but note the "Facinelli" part: in the secretarial one, the "acinelli" is not connected to the "F", whereas in the supposedly authentic one the "a" in "Facinelli" has a line that goes through the "F", and that part Peter always sign (it's how he stripes the "F"). So that's an important characteristic to look out for. Furthermore, again, the secretarial one is big and loopy, while the authentic one is more flat.It seems the secretary has picked up on how Peter signs, as it's becoming harder to tell the difference, but there's certain things you can't forge - everyone has their own way of signing, and that's Peter's way.

Hope this helps!

To be honest, I think them both secretarial. The second one is pretty easy to tell, but the first one, too, I'd say. It seems to me that his secretary realized how different the secretarial version was, so he/she tried to adopt Peter's style and features of his autograph, like personalization written not in capital letters, and this "bulbed" shape of the autograph. And one more thing: Peter always dedicates like "To name" not just "Name comma".

[lizane]

To be honest, I think them both secretarial. The second one is pretty easy to tell, but the first one, too, I'd say. It seems to me that his secretary realized how different the secretarial version was, so he/she tried to adopt Peter's style and features of his autograph, like personalization written not in capital letters, and this "bulbed" shape of the autograph. And one more thing: Peter always dedicates like "To name" not just "Name comma".

Yes, I know it does look fishy, all I said was that it has more of the characteristics than an authentic. Also, as I said before, why would Peter have two (or more?) different secretaries signing for him? Because it's clear that the usual secretarial ones are still being sent out, as well as these new possible authentic/secretarial one. :neutral: That surely doesn't make sense to me and is something I've never seen with TTM autographs from the same address.

But I am not going to bet my whole collection that that success is authentic, no! I agree perfectly well that it does look more rushed and odd than the normal authentic ones, but it certainly does not look like it has been signed by the same sec who has been signing most of his stuff. Of course, perhaps he/she sat one day and carefully practised his handwriting and signature (which is a little impossible, as we all write differently) and now he/she can do his signature a bit better, who knows?

Look, this topic is only for you to compare your TTM Peter autograph to and to have a more clear idea on its authenticity. {thumb2} It won't work if everyone starts posting their successes here for me to tell if it's authentic - I already have my hands full with pm's being sent to me to say if their Peter sig's are authentic! I don't even have his autograph myself! I'm just trying to help here by pointing out the basic characteristics of an authentic Peter Facinelli autograph, that's it. These newer successes definitely does not look authentic, all I said was that it doesn't look like the usual secretarial ones - I guess it's possible that he now hired someone more trained to sign for him?

Lastly, please rather compare successes to the (many!) examples I posted in my original post - you'll definitely be able to know if it's authentic/secretarial by yourself as my guide is thorough (I hope!). Also, I'm certainly not the "be all and end all" of autographs authenticity - I just makes these guides about people I have an interest in and of whom I have some knowledge (in terms of autographs), I am only human and definitely can make mistakes too!

[meganalice]

After looking at the topic with the comparisons I think ours look more like the real than secretarial, but I'd like a second opinion if possible. Also, the fact that they are screenshots of Carlisle (I did not send pictures and I mentioned a lot about Carlisle in the letter) seemed like a good sign. I'm a bit of a pessimist. My friend's is a surprise for her birthday so I'd like to know if it's genuine or not. Help please?

my friend's:

mine:

[lizane]

Hi meganalice!

Both you and your friend's autographs are authentic. I think it matches very good to in person and other authentic examples.

Regards!

[meganalice]

Hi meganalice!

Both you and your friend's autographs are authentic. I think it matches very good to in person and other authentic examples.

Regards!

aww thanks! I'm really happy!

[SophieBooty]

I'm Pretty Certain My Three Are Authentic!

Sadly I Don't Have A Scanner, So I Can't Show You,

But The Personalisation Is Small, And In Lowercase,
And The Signature Matches The Authentic TTM Ones,

Really Happy, {love}

Plus This Is My 100th Post!

SOPHIE. {thumb2}