quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Bartowski:
Autograph aside, there are other issues with the Holloway...the quotes around Sawyer is wrong, and the Inkworks emblem on the front is too far to the left...it intrudes in the LOST test. I checked every other LOST auto I have and none of the others are like that.

webjon...I'm not sure what you mean by the Inkworks watermark.

Well now we are getting to the meat of the matter. I hate to repeat myself, but as I tried to say several posts back, this Sawyer is like the Watson example. It is a certified autograph card and IF it has a bad signature (be it autopenned or whatever else)than it is almost certainly a counterfeit card.

So you can talk about the signature, but don't forget about the authenticity of the card itself. Genuine autographs are not found on counterfeit cards and genuine manufacturer certified autograph cards don't have fake signatures. (OK, there are blank cards and backdoor cards, but its a leap of faith that genuine ones don't. )

As for the Inkworks watermark, it is on the back of the card and becomes more visible as you move it in the light. Its just a small "*Inkworks" logo printed on a diagonal line many times over across the whole back. But some people have claimed that some counterfeit cards have had the watermark, so I don't know how reliable its supposed to be anymore.

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

Oy. . . This is at least the 2nd counterfeit card I've heard of that has the Inkworks watermark.

Given the watermark, and the 'mistakes' on these cards they have to have been done by someone in the production process of the cards.

I just found out on ebay that the buyer of the fake Emma Watson autograph is "cowboymacg32".

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
. . . There are certainly differences between autopen dots and dots (dark spots) in a signature. . .

Your scans are still too small to see, but the top scan that you refer to as 'cushing' looks like dark blocks, not round dots.

The Hamill definitely has dark spots, but not at the end of every line, and also there is a ton of feathering in the signature (at least not from the looks of the small scan).

This really is totally comparing apples to oranges. If you want to discuss dots in signatures then we should be talking about signatures that are being called into question -- not random signatures that you can find with dark spots in 'em.

While dark spots in signatures aren't the end all to be all to determine authenticity in a signature (and I don't think anyone every said that they were). They are one of a number of tell tale signs that there could be problems.

What are your thoughts on the Josh Holloway? Real or questionable?

Jon

well, I cant make the signatures much larger...its already 3x its normal size and are very well defined so if you cant see em so be it.

As for the Hamill, it really doesn’t have a trace of feathering on any of the lines in it at all, non on the scan and non in person. As you can see, the pen at many points stops and dark circular double inked/catch points develop, which is very VERY common on autographs.

As for the ink catch’s at the end of some lines in a signature, the notion was being sent out there, that an autograph that has one of them or many of them is somehow indicative of an "autopen" signature. Im just saying in no way shape or form is that accurate. Those ink catch’s are consistent and normal with many pen types. Seeing or not seeing them really isn’t evidence of anything on its own. The only real evidence for an autograph being fake can be gotten from an expert in the signature and through proportion analysis taking into account slant, pressure, placement, access of material, and opportunity for signing (could they have been there to do this).


As for the sawyer, I’m not an expert on his autograph or lost in general. I would say the real evidence would come from the card itself, paper consistency and feel compared to an original. Ink type, size and flow, as well as reflectivity of layered ink and hand effects. If you see feathering , likely not autopen/preprint.

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

I purchased a Cradle of life angelin jolie which did not match the rest of the set.

The noticable differences were the gap between the writing of her name and the bottom of the card was different, also the inkworks logo did not match the cards in the rest of the set, the logo did match cards from other inkworks sets I have but not within the Cradle of Life set. The logo was more squished, the other cards have the logo which the letters are slightly more spaced.

I sent the card back and got a full refund, so I think the seller was geniune, just not the card.

If anyone else has the set, do their cards all match in those features?

I don't have a Jolie -- did you get a good scan of the questionable card before you returned it?

I bought the Angelina Jolie COL autograph from a VERY legitimate dealer shortly after the set was released. The Inkworks logo IS as you described in your post, more compact then on the other autograph cards, but her signature is placed the same as the others, in this case just above her left shoulder.

Here's the best I can do with my camera:

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

A scan of mine can be found at http://nonsportupdate.infopop....6073384/m/5941046003

Cardaddict, from the photo it is hard to tell but is the distance from the bottom of the card to the Lara Croft writing the same as the Chris Barrie card. In the bottom left.

The card I had was different from the rest of the set in this regard of about 1mm.

I tried scanning at work but the scanner was rubbish and the scan was useless.

The LARA CROFT is about 4mm and the HILLARY is about 5mm.

But, I also measured the other autos in the set, and they seem to vary between 4mm and 5mm.

Well that might imply the card was genuine, oops.. oh well no harm done.

It does seem weird that only one card of the six is different. Why would they do that? It defies logic.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
I don't have a Jolie -- did you get a good scan of the questionable card before you returned it?

Check out the Jolie autograph cards that have just shown up on the auction site that shall not be named. Two IDENTICAL autos, a different Jolie auto, and a ton of pieceworks...