The View Autograph segment

Here Sue...try this link. These are from 2003 to 2007 acquired by
Rupert

http://pages.stricklersports.com/898...1934377/1.html

Thanks for the Link; where does this guy get the stuff? For example,
some look very nice to me but some don't. For example (by the way I
collect Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and Pirates) that
Geoffrey Rush is very nice. The Carrie's and Hamill's are nice but
the cheesy sig you have doesn't look right (by that I mean of all the
Star Wars graphs, he's the most common of your group along with Ray
Park and cheapest to get... being Jake Lloyd). I've seen him at CIV;
got some sigs of his (and from Disney when he did Star Wars Weekends)
and that is off as he writes always very close together, pretty small
usually and very leaning/bold. That's too loopy and large and neat.
And the other that looks off to me is the Ewan/Portman looks off.
Ewan as you know is all over the place. People signing crap for him
by mail and on sets (both good and bad have come from movie sets). My
friend met him in person on the set of a movie and got a couple
graphs; I'll email him for samples to refresh my memory but even the
Portman doesn't really go with your others... The rest of the Star
wars look nice.

On the Pirates, they look okay I guess; I am not good with Orlando so
much and Kiera's sig has changed the past 6 years pretty drastically
(as has Orlandos). So I reserve comments on those. Though I do love
that Geoffrey Rush sig; that's nice looking.

Some of the LOTR too look a bit off. It's possible though like Cate
Blanchette is rushed or something... but not close to the Topps cards,
the ttm or primo official posters I've seen.

As for the Potter; I see the Radcliffe's look pretty damned close to
the in person play reports and also the preprints his father allows.
So unless someone is a damned good forger, those look good.

So I am kind of confused myself.

Question, this guy you get the stuff from, are you POSITIVE he gets
them all (I mean you'd trust him with your life?). It is possible he
just needs to make a little more and throws a few "extra" in there?
I've always wondered how people who employ others to get sigs in
person, can 1) afford to do so 2) trust them with their
reputation/business etc. That's a LOT of trust! I have spoken with
people who said to me before (even YES, people who sell stuff and are
very trusted) that they buy from "estates" and "collectors entire
collections". Doing this would not be so great because like in my
case, if I didn't specify my "questionable" sigs or my "secretarials"
a few would slip by and be sold as "trusted". Most of my collection
is very clean but there is a about 1% off (I've got thousands so
that's a dozen or more for sure). Nobody can be sure of anything is
my point.

This is what I personally would LOVE to see dealers do: tell us where
each signature came from and give as much specifics as possible. Now
I can hear many saying "that's impossible" as it's too hard with so
many and it's not possible. But I've received signatures from a
couple who have little stickers on the back telling which con they
came from with the date obtained. A COA with it from a REPUTABLE
dealer would mean that if a good buyer did research and found say that
photo was NOT available at that con, then a refund could be given. Or
if a person was scheduled at that con and didn't appear but magically
there were signed photos, then a refund could be given. Stuff like
that. Photos are good too, as if you take a photo of say someone at
the Hollywood collectors show and you send the graph to the person
with the photo and the info, the person can go online and find other
reports of the events and photos from other's reports. They can match
up clothing as proof that what you did was right. Since you are
charging so high on your graphs; why not back them and make your
reputation such that it's not contestable? Just a thought.





On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:02:55 -0800 (PST), stricklercelebs
wrote:

Here Sue...try this link. These are from 2003 to 2007 acquired by
Rupert

http://pages.stricklersports.com/898...1934377/1.html

PS God forbid I side with Barefoot on anything (cough) but I too would
totally stay clear of that multi signed black Harry Potter poster in
the different colors. If for nothing else the fact that on Ebay,
there are so many fake posters in these colors it's not funny....
don't remember whose name they were being sold by but they were indeed
bad (and I've literally seen dozens of those).

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:45:47 -0500, Sue H wrote:

Thanks for the Link; where does this guy get the stuff? For example,
some look very nice to me but some don't. For example (by the way I
collect Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and Pirates) that
Geoffrey Rush is very nice. The Carrie's and Hamill's are nice but
the cheesy sig you have doesn't look right (by that I mean of all the
Star Wars graphs, he's the most common of your group along with Ray
Park and cheapest to get... being Jake Lloyd). I've seen him at CIV;
got some sigs of his (and from Disney when he did Star Wars Weekends)
and that is off as he writes always very close together, pretty small
usually and very leaning/bold. That's too loopy and large and neat.
And the other that looks off to me is the Ewan/Portman looks off.
Ewan as you know is all over the place. People signing crap for him
by mail and on sets (both good and bad have come from movie sets). My
friend met him in person on the set of a movie and got a couple
graphs; I'll email him for samples to refresh my memory but even the
Portman doesn't really go with your others... The rest of the Star
wars look nice.

On the Pirates, they look okay I guess; I am not good with Orlando so
much and Kiera's sig has changed the past 6 years pretty drastically
(as has Orlandos). So I reserve comments on those. Though I do love
that Geoffrey Rush sig; that's nice looking.

Some of the LOTR too look a bit off. It's possible though like Cate
Blanchette is rushed or something... but not close to the Topps cards,
the ttm or primo official posters I've seen.

As for the Potter; I see the Radcliffe's look pretty damned close to
the in person play reports and also the preprints his father allows.
So unless someone is a damned good forger, those look good.

So I am kind of confused myself.

Question, this guy you get the stuff from, are you POSITIVE he gets
them all (I mean you'd trust him with your life?). It is possible he
just needs to make a little more and throws a few "extra" in there?
I've always wondered how people who employ others to get sigs in
person, can 1) afford to do so 2) trust them with their
reputation/business etc. That's a LOT of trust! I have spoken with
people who said to me before (even YES, people who sell stuff and are
very trusted) that they buy from "estates" and "collectors entire
collections". Doing this would not be so great because like in my
case, if I didn't specify my "questionable" sigs or my "secretarials"
a few would slip by and be sold as "trusted". Most of my collection
is very clean but there is a about 1% off (I've got thousands so
that's a dozen or more for sure). Nobody can be sure of anything is
my point.

This is what I personally would LOVE to see dealers do: tell us where
each signature came from and give as much specifics as possible. Now
I can hear many saying "that's impossible" as it's too hard with so
many and it's not possible. But I've received signatures from a
couple who have little stickers on the back telling which con they
came from with the date obtained. A COA with it from a REPUTABLE
dealer would mean that if a good buyer did research and found say that
photo was NOT available at that con, then a refund could be given. Or
if a person was scheduled at that con and didn't appear but magically
there were signed photos, then a refund could be given. Stuff like
that. Photos are good too, as if you take a photo of say someone at
the Hollywood collectors show and you send the graph to the person
with the photo and the info, the person can go online and find other
reports of the events and photos from other's reports. They can match
up clothing as proof that what you did was right. Since you are
charging so high on your graphs; why not back them and make your
reputation such that it's not contestable? Just a thought.





On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:02:55 -0800 (PST), stricklercelebs
wrote:

Here Sue...try this link. These are from 2003 to 2007 acquired by
Rupert

http://pages.stricklersports.com/898...1934377/1.html

http://www.stricklersports.com/

http://cgi.tias.com/cgi-bin/sqlsearc...t=harry+potter

hope that helps...
his stuff is a JOKE...
i'm begging him to try stuff against me...he's already threatened
bodily harm...but i doubt a real lawyer will ever become involved...
it's off to the land of make belive for him...just like his stuff...
you'll find that nothing looks like anything you've ever seen as
real...
m

and all sammer did was say that you and steve communicated...but not
about the content of that communication...
in case you are reading this steve...
please have your lawyer contact me...i count the days...
you have my email address, you tried to bust in and im me...i'm sure
that you can find someone of real value to get a hold of me and MAKE
me stop....
m

and strickler already says on his website that a third party
authentication is not good enough to get a return.. he has a whole "a
third party that we both agree on." i bet they are all his friends and
don't run an authentication business at all.
he'll get caught...he just stands behind his dealers too much...he
doesn't get any of the material himself anyway....but if he's gonna
make threats, he better prepare to back them up...and he better not
have a forgery on his site when he tries to sue me or do whatever he
thinks he has planned for me. but it's all good...have a good year
all!
m

and sue, there are plenty of dealers who put when and where any item
they have signed comes from...
autographpros
autographworld
iconographs used to, i don't know any longer...
and GULP!
starbrite autographs (i guess i'm still advertising for a company i
don't own)
but all these companies issue coas and have all that information
available.
there's people on ebay that not only give out the date and signing
location info, but they also post photos of the person signing the
EXACT item.
like mike at autographpros said, there are plenty of people doing the
right thing...and we all take all the steps to assure you that a buyer
is getting square deal and everything is real.
many of the people with REAL autographs post their photos of people
signing with a ghost of their company name and the like on top of the
photos because unscrupulous dealers steal them from us. it's a sad
situation...someone selling forgeries goes to all these lengths to
prove their stuff is real (when everyone knows it's not)...but those
of us selling real items have to go even above that because a forger
is right around the corner ready to steal an image, an autograph look
etc...
and nothing stricker is selling is real (except MAYBe that montana
jersey)....
i'm waiting steve!
m

I just got a reply from UACC. I'm not going to comment on wether
signatures are real or fake, but I have to let you all know the UACC
said Strickler is just a member NOT a registered dealer. Just don't
get it confused, anyone can be a member, you just pay a fee,
registered dealers are limited to 225 dealer and he is not one. Just
FYI