Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

Forum rules
Sponsored link: Browse safely with Opera free VPN! Download now!

Image Search the message board Image

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) :( :shock: :? 8) :lol: :P :oops: :cry: :roll: ;-) :| {up} {??} {down} :mrgreen: [us] [ca] [uk] [germany] {star} <<arrow$ [ugotmail]
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Maximum filesize per attachment: 256 KiB.

Expand view Topic review: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by lilbribri » Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:53 pm

Wow.I hope none of mine are from secs.Haha thanks guys!

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by autoland » Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:44 pm

LikelyLadsfan wrote:
lilbribri wrote:How do you know if its secritarial?
The clue would be in the difference of the autograph

Celebs sign quick, fakes and secs take time to make it look right.

Also timing, some celebs can be on holliday or other places and you recieve an autograph back within 2 days at the same time :neutral: thats when the alarms ring.

Say like you sent a letter and request to a london agency, you recieve it back with a stamp marked london but the celebs living in leeds, its more then likely a sec (always a chance the star is down in london). But if it came back with a stamp marked leeds theres a pretty good chance its authentic..

I'm rambling now...I make no sence :lol:

Absolutely right on the button {thumb2} I concur with all the above.

I personally would much rather, have a small collection of TTM authentics, then tons of dodgy autographs, with the occassional authentic MASTERPIECE.

If a celeb has a sec, then you can bet your bottom dollar, that some of their day, is spent answering fanmail. And please believe me, some of these are good at their job, and you would have to look into a microscope, to see the main diffronaces.

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by LikelyLadsfan » Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:54 pm

lilbribri wrote:How do you know if its secritarial?
The clue would be in the difference of the autograph

Celebs sign quick, fakes and secs take time to make it look right.

Also timing, some celebs can be on holliday or other places and you recieve an autograph back within 2 days at the same time :neutral: thats when the alarms ring.

Say like you sent a letter and request to a london agency, you recieve it back with a stamp marked london but the celebs living in leeds, its more then likely a sec (always a chance the star is down in london). But if it came back with a stamp marked leeds theres a pretty good chance its authentic..

I'm rambling now...I make no sence :lol:

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by lilbribri » Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:30 pm

How do you know if its secritarial?

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by Theo2008 » Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:46 am

Thanks, that answered my question. {up}

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by sunkissed08 » Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:28 am

autoland wrote:
sunkissed08 wrote:i doubt any fan would sue a celebrity :neutral: although i do think it's wrong. i've been lucky enough to not receive any secretarials.


Very true, it's all very wrong, but it's so widespread, noone can stop it.

Oh,and how can you be so sure that you have not recieved any Secretarials, the only time anyone can say that, is if all your autographs are in person, or home address or VV.(but you can even get cons there as well).

So I personally, try not to leave the word "authentic" with my feedback successes. I may well believe at the time, I recieve them that they are, but by using that word you, must have proof.

i've compared a lot of them to IP's. i wouldn't count a success secretarial :neutral: it's like trash to me.

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by autoland » Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:06 am

sunkissed08 wrote:i doubt any fan would sue a celebrity :neutral: although i do think it's wrong. i've been lucky enough to not receive any secretarials.


Very true, it's all very wrong, but it's so widespread, noone can stop it.

Oh,and how can you be so sure that you have not recieved any Secretarials, the only time anyone can say that, is if all your autographs are in person, or home address or VV.(but you can even get cons there as well).

So I personally, try not to leave the word "authentic" with my feedback successes. I may well believe at the time, I recieve them that they are, but by using that word you, must have proof.

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by sunkissed08 » Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:46 am

i doubt any fan would sue a celebrity :neutral: although i do think it's wrong. i've been lucky enough to not receive any secretarials.

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by Theo2008 » Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:34 pm

Wow, that sucks.

What if we can prove the secretary signed it with the celebrities intention to be its own autograph?

Re: Isn't sending secratarial signatures fraud?

by Shambler » Sun Aug 17, 2008 6:49 pm

It should be illegal, but is not because;

- the secretaries are signing on the celeb's behalf with the full consent of that celebrity

- the person receiving the autograph cannot prove 'conclusively' that it was signed by someone other than the celebrity, as they were not there in person to see that.

Shambler 8)

Top