quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
....although I lucked out and pulled a Brosnan from a James Bond 2014 Archives box I bought for a sale price of $45, filling one of the many holes in my binder.

Congratulations, a fantastic looking card!

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
I'm trying to post a picture of the Brosnan card but Photobucket refuses to upload my photo. I think it may be because I can not get a good enough internet connection from AT&T. I'll keep trying though.

I still need 14 autograph cards to complete the 2014 Bond set. And a lot of the side sets cards too.

Finally, after many tries, it uploaded:

Been so busy I forgot to say, NICE card! As I said before, his signatures were a bit more consistent on his Tomorrow Never Dies full-bleed and I think yours is a good looking example. Doesn't get much better for a $45 pack pull!

quote:

Originally posted by cheifbrody:
The thing that got me was the fact that Kenneth Tsang signed the 40th anniv auto cards, RA may have made the mistake with the different actor image but Tsang must have known it wasn't his photo on the cards ? anyway, I have my correct colonel Moon full bleed so it's all ok
RA keep messing up the Samantha Bond auto's, she has signed several times and have nearly always missed the right image for the right film, as a full bleed film theme collector the last Brosnan was annoying, they first listed it as world is not enough, then changed it to studio pose, so it doesn't go in the world is not enough theme packs, which would have left the Brosnan only needing Die another day to complete.
and with the next set, I really hope if Lea Seydoux as signed they'll be nice enough to give her to full bleed collectors, still waiting for berenice marlohe after how long ? the pain.

I think Tsang just took the money!

The Samantha Bond errors really annoy me as I have always really liked her character and she keeps on getting errors.

I really wouldn't worry what RA called the latest Brosnan auto on the checklist. What does "Gallery Pose" even really mean? You could call his GoldenEye full-bleed exactly the same thing, or "publicity pose" Brosnan! Anyway, all of his full-bleed cards only say "as James Bond 007" on the back, none of them mention the film. The card from Classics 2016 is a TWINE publicity image so I would put him with the other TWINE cards.

Really hoping for Seydoux as well, I don't care which card comes first as long as they get her. I'm looking forward to the long awaited full-bleed Marlohe. I know it will be a bit samey compared to her 40th and WOB cards but I'm hoping for the image off her Gold Gallery/Bond Girls Are Forever cards. Will be over the moon if her signature is any better/neater...

I am a more laid back collector. It really doesn't bother me (at least not too much) if the card photo relating to a specific movie is correct or not. My goal is just to have at least one of every card in the set, along with an unopened box, promos, etc. I also do not have a preference as to the style of the autograph card, they are all great to me. And I don't sort the autos according to movie, subject, type of card, etc. Every card for a specific set goes into the binder released for that particular set, and if there is no binder I make my own.

I came across an interesting completed listing on eBay the other day: Pierce Brosnan's first autograph card from Mission Logs but signed in black ink. The first I have seen in the 5 years this set has been out. Maybe one for the hardcore variant collector? Maybe not because the pen used is terrible. Still, someone got a legit Brosnan card for under £100.



Given the ink smudges on the front and back, it must have had another of the same card placed both on top and underneath it, so I'd guess there may be a couple more out there.

I would be curious to know the origins of this one as it doesn't look like a pack insert. It has been trimmed so there is less image on the right compared to other examples of this card, and as can been seen there is some excess white card that needs to be trimmed off the top. I know RA have given their signers slightly oversized untrimmed cards for their own personal use, but in all the years I have never seen one as badly cut as this. I would have imagined it would have got binned, and yet Brosnan actually signed it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: X,

This may have no relationship to that Brosnan card, but the smudges of ink on the back of the card reminded of an autographed card that I recently rejected. I was offered a signed John Travolta Americana material card. The signature was on-card in silver. The seller got it from someone else and assumed it was certified from the product.

It wasn't and it was a easy call for me to know that, the card was number from 500 I believe. So this was a plain old costume card of Travolta that had been signed.

Was it a genuine autograph? I don't know. It bore some similarity to the original, but Travolta has one of those autographs that could be anything with a line. In any event, the first party sold it to the second party without explanation of any personal signing and the second party made the mistake of taking it as a certified autograph/relic instead of just a certified relic. I passed on it.

Now after that lengthy story, I'll come back to the point. The back of that Travolta card had the same sort of ink smudges as this Brosnan, only in silver ink of course. The front signature was not smudged as far as I remember. Just thought that it was odd since I have never seen ink transfers on the backs of certified autograph cards.

Simple explanation:
Smudges on the front = done by the signer's hand or when another card has been placed on top of a still-drying autograph. If that happens there will also be transfer to the reverse of the 'top' card.

(I don't think it has been done by hand as people move relatively quickly and those types of smudges tend to streak further/longer across the surface. I think this is just from a stack of cards - who knows how many - sitting together with wet ink on them).

I have no doubt as to the authenticity of this card or signature, I'd just be curious to know where it 'fits in'?
Was it from his stack of pack inserted cards but Brosnan signed a couple with a bad pen (which we've seen happen before: X-Men/Famke Janssen) and was meant to be junked but got back-doored? Was it an extra goodwill freebie given to Brosnan along with his remuneration for signing?

As for Travolta, what an appalling autograph that man has.

Ah yes, the back door.

Not so sure it exists anymore. It was very active 20 - 25 years ago, but now there are too many other more or less sanctioned ways that good cards manage to bypass regular channels and wind up in certain places. Non-sport cards are generally fairly limited and the modern once time only production does not involve crossing as many hands. This stuff is not walking away unnoticed, especially not a Brosnan signature, although I don't care for the condition of the smudged signature at all.

Which brings up another story about an RA Game of Thrones Oona Chaplin Season 3 autograph I bought year. Now this card is unquestionably authentic and it came as a part of a multiple purchase of GoT autographs that I did with a well known dealer. Not a normal member here, so don't start guessing, it's not important, but it is a large dealer.

I thought both Chaplin GoT cards were extremely over priced for her role, so she was a gap in my collection. The 3rd season card is the most expensive, but this was a good buy. It was the cheapest I ever saw it and was actually in line with my price, so I added it to the order. When it came the card grade was fine, but the signature was not. It is not smudged, it is what you might call double streaked. It may have had marker/ink problems or she may have tried to write over her last name. I can't decide which it is, but there are double strokes close to each other in the Chaplin part and Oona is a bit streaky, but clean.

So is this a damaged auto that should have been junked? I doubt it, but it probably wouldn't grade well as a signature. Did RA release it in this condition? I'm sure they would, it's genuine and on a limited card. I briefly thought of returning it, but than I would have a gap that I probably wouldn't fill and I did get a nice discount, even though I didn't know the reason obviously. Long story short, I kept it, even though all I can see when I look at it are the streaks.

I have also noticed that quite a few of those silver and gold signatures that RA uses in Bond, GoT and Star Trek are not coming out that well. Some are the case incentives and some of the Star Trek were just another card version for the signer. The quality of these autographs seem to vary. Some are thin, some streak, some almost disappear, some are too thick, some look fine. Again the ones that don't take well are not necessarily damaged, but they don't look as nice either.

So bringing it back to that Brosnan card which you are certain has an authentic autograph, wherever it originated from, a discount was certainly in order because the signature is damaged, not trashed, but damaged. I don't know at what price I would knowingly purchase a card like that because all I can see when I look at it is the smudges.

For those who find them useful, I have updated the Master List of all James Bond autograph cards on p.15 to include the most recent set Bond Archives 2016 - SPECTRE Edition, which gave us 29 new cards and brings the total autograph card count to 666.

Thanks to Raven in the SPECTRE thread for pointing out the numbering error on RA's checklist for Bianchi's 40th Anniversary card.

Am I the only one who thinks that Brosnan is a bit questionable?..

quote:

Originally posted by Goldfish:
Am I the only one who thinks that Brosnan is a bit questionable?..

What makes you think so?

If you look at all the Brosnan cards for sale/sold on eBay right now, no two signatures are the same. It is something of an achievement for every autograph to be so different when you think about it. He is well known among Bond autograph collectors as being a difficult one to authenticate as he has SO much variation to his signature, as there seems to be little pattern to what sort of autograph he gives. It all seems very mood dependent but there are still the tell tale signs...

These days his 'B' often (and when signing fast) looks more like an '8' or an 'S' what with the way he loops it around in one stroke. Whilst not too hard to copy, it does look right here, even if it is loose.
But the things that have never changed over all the years, and the thousands of autographs he's done, is the very distinct looking 'P' (with the top section these days placed much higher) and the way 'ier' looks more like a wide 'u' with a flat top to the 'r'.

And funnily enough, even though his surname is a very sloppy example of his modern autograph with most/all letters indistinct, the last 'n' of Brosnan is actually how he signed in the really early days: with a slight upward flick and then off to the side horizontally (although shorter here because of the space on the card). It's quite uncommon to see now and I'd expect a forger to send that flick off into the sky like Brosnan does on the majority of his cards.

This is a rare full signature from Brosnan signed twenty odd years ago when Tomorrow Never Dies was the latest Bond movie. You can see how things have changed, as mentioned above, but that hallmarks from the same hand still remain in even the worst cards he signed for RA:



The card above is not a very nice example of his signature but I wouldn't worry about it's authenticity.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: X,

I don't own any of Brosnan's autographed cards, but I have looked at them with envy ever since RA got him to sign certified cards. One thing I've noticed is that his signature is not terribly consistent, the other thing is that it's hard to find a good one. By a good one I mean a crisp, bold, non-streaky signature. His autographed RA cards tend to look light, with thin strokes. There are often streaks or fade-aways at the beginning and end and sometimes even in the middle.

I don't know if it's the way he writes or the pens he is given to use, but a strong autograph from him on an RA Bond card should earn a premium. Just looking at the other ones shown in this thread you can see what I mean.

Now I already made comments about that Mission Log signed card and I have not changed my mind, if anything this second look makes me more convinced that I would consider that card to be damaged because of the condition of the signature. I would not buy that card unless it was drastically discounted and since it is expensive as a card, I really don't know that anyone would price to a point where I thought it worthwhile.

Because as an autograph card collector I value the autograph above the card, I would rather have a card in lesser condition with a pristine signature, than a pristine card with a lesser/damaged signature. I also balk at paying high prices for autographs from people who just can't bother to give you anything that looks like the alphabet, but that is a whole other issue.

Anyway, regardless of my picky ways, I do think that the bargain on that card was not so much a bargain because the signature is not of a high "display quality".

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
One thing I've noticed is that his signature is not terribly consistent, the other thing is that it's hard to find a good one. By a good one I mean a crisp, bold, non-streaky signature. His autographed RA cards tend to look light, with thin strokes. There are often streaks or fade-aways at the beginning and end and sometimes even in the middle.

I don't know if it's the way he writes or the pens he is given to use, but a strong autograph from him on an RA Bond card should earn a premium. Just looking at the other ones shown in this thread you can see what I mean.

I agree a 'better' signature should have a higher price but I don't always see that happen in eBay auctions... the best signature I have seen of his Tomorrow Never Dies full-bleed card ended recently (2 years after release) with a low/mid-level price.

I have seen the 'fade-aways' in the signatures you mention, at the start where the lower portion of the 'P' sometimes joins the top or when the end of the signature trails off (both due to lighter pen pressure). That said, I have noticed that a lot of his The World Is Not Enough full-bleed autos are lighter in overall appearance/ink colour. All of his cards are dated 2010 and I think by the time he signed this card style the pen was failing a bit.

These are some scans I have of each of Brosnan's card releases so far and may help illustrate for others:



Top left is the first Brosnan I had, a very loose example. Replaced with the second because this was my 'grail' card and I wanted a decent signature.
Lower left is the best TND Brosnan auto I have seen, and on the right a dry-pen TWINE full-bleed. Ignoring the ink issue on the latter, this looks like the majority of his on-card autographs across all autograph styles we've seen so far.
The 40th card is probably the best example of his signature I have seen on any trading card. It went for a strong price as I recall. I would have loved to have this one (and the TND) in my collection but I thought multiple high value cards from the same signer was a bit extravagant and something of a waste of money.

TL,DR: 5 cards, 5 completely different signatures, but all authentic!

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I also balk at paying high prices for autographs from people who just can't bother to give you anything that looks like the alphabet, but that is a whole other issue.

+100 on that one. Really struggling to persuade myself to get a Marlohe from the latest Bond set. I have no problem with signers using first/last name only but her autograph seems to get worse with every release.

...and another two completely different examples!

Nice cards Rich

Different yes, but also the streaks or fade-away portions are evident in the strokes, even on these nice examples.

So do you think that Brosnan signed all of his cards, in all the various formats, at the same time years ago?

Sure looks like it. And he couldn't find another pen when the ink ran out.

All his cards from Mission Logs (2011) up to Classics (2016) have the same 2010 copyright date on the back - I reckon RA didn't want to miss the chance to have him sign everything they needed in one go in case they couldn't get him again.

I'm certain we'll see one more full-bleed from him for Die Another Day that may well accompany the inevitable Die Another Day throwback set. I do wonder though if we'll see any more 40th style autos similar to what has been done with Moore and Craig.

Thanks X!

Very happy with my cards/exampless, although definitely think you have a gold standard on your second mission logs pick up.

The Brosnan cards I think are weaker are those with the aforementioned faded pen, and there does seem a few of those about, so yes, maybe it was the end of a long signing session.

There has been some talk of late that 2017 may be the last year for Bond cards by RA...

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
There has been some talk of late that 2017 may be the last year for Bond cards by RA...

Any more details?

Just that the 2017 set may very well be the last