jamiso wrote:Wow this is interesting and new! My opinion is that if this success is not authentic, it's probably an AP(?). it's clearly not a PP.
The best way for me to test if the autograph is printed onto the photo is to shine light underneath the photograph. Judging from the photo you posted, it does not look like a pre-print to me as the position and strokes of the autograph is different from the standard PPs he usually sends. Plus, the indiactaion seems handwritten. It seems like the person who inscribed the photo looks like he signed it as well as the handwriting are parellel.
jamiso wrote:Wow this is interesting and new! My opinion is that if this success is not authentic, it's probably an AP(?). it's clearly not a PP.
The best way for me to test if the autograph is printed onto the photo is to shine light underneath the photograph. Judging from the photo you posted, it does not look like a pre-print to me as the position and strokes of the autograph is different from the standard PPs he usually sends. Plus, the indiactaion seems handwritten. It seems like the person who inscribed the photo looks like he signed it as well as the handwriting are parellel.
It's very obviously a PP.
I could see why you would assume the photograph is a preprint considering the fact that it is the same photograph that his agency has been sending out. However, on a PP, the autograph is usually printed on the same place and the strokes are exactly the same. The link of a blog Izabellatrix posted has an example of his standard print-print. http://harry-potter-kolekcja.blog.onet. ... radcliffe/
Just by comparing the two is a clear indication that they are not the same printed photograph. Truth be told, it's silly for me to have to explain this and one must be blind if he still thinks they are the same thing.
jamiso wrote:Wow this is interesting and new! My opinion is that if this success is not authentic, it's probably an AP(?). it's clearly not a PP.
The best way for me to test if the autograph is printed onto the photo is to shine light underneath the photograph. Judging from the photo you posted, it does not look like a pre-print to me as the position and strokes of the autograph is different from the standard PPs he usually sends. Plus, the indiactaion seems handwritten. It seems like the person who inscribed the photo looks like he signed it as well as the handwriting are parellel.
It's very obviously a PP.
I could see why you would assume the photograph is a preprint considering the fact that it is the same photograph that his agency has been sending out. However, on a PP, the autograph is usually printed on the same place and the strokes are exactly the same. The link of a blog Izabellatrix posted has an example of his standard print-print. http://harry-potter-kolekcja.blog.onet. ... radcliffe/
Just by comparing the two is a clear indication that they are not the same printed photograph. Truth be told, it's silly for me to have to explain this and one must be blind if he still thinks they are the same thing.
Before you both talk down to someone, and imply that someone with a heck of a lot of experience is stupid and/or blind, you might want to do some simple checks.
luckyas13canbe wrote:
Before you both talk down to someone, and imply that someone with a heck of a lot of experience is stupid and/or blind, you might want to do some simple checks.
You can say whatever you want, but the fact is clearly out there.. I am just voicing my opinion, as are you. If you don't agree with my thoughts, that's your problem, not mine!
luckyas13canbe wrote:
Before you both talk down to someone, and imply that someone with a heck of a lot of experience is stupid and/or blind, you might want to do some simple checks.
You can say whatever you want, but the fact is clearly out there.. I am just voicing my opinion, as are you. If you don't agree with my thoughts, that's your problem, not mine!
Just to check... did you look at the links?
I fully agree that on the link you provided is a PP example. I'm also aware that more than one PP is out there for Dan, and if you can't see that the one on this post is identical to the two links I provided from this very site, as well as numerous others, then you're doing nothing but showing yourself up there. As I said, best to check facts before making offensive comments to posters.
luckyas13canbe wrote:
Before you both talk down to someone, and imply that someone with a heck of a lot of experience is stupid and/or blind, you might want to do some simple checks.
You can say whatever you want, but the fact is clearly out there.. I am just voicing my opinion, as are you. If you don't agree with my thoughts, that's your problem, not mine!
luckyas13canbe wrote:
Before you both talk down to someone, and imply that someone with a heck of a lot of experience is stupid and/or blind, you might want to do some simple checks.
You can say whatever you want, but the fact is clearly out there.. I am just voicing my opinion, as are you. If you don't agree with my thoughts, that's your problem, not mine!
luckyas13canbe wrote:
Before you both talk down to someone, and imply that someone with a heck of a lot of experience is stupid and/or blind, you might want to do some simple checks.
You can say whatever you want, but the fact is clearly out there.. I am just voicing my opinion, as are you. If you don't agree with my thoughts, that's your problem, not mine!
Just to check... did you look at the links?
I fully agree that on the link you provided is a PP example. I'm also aware that more than one PP is out there for Dan, and if you can't see that the one on this post is identical to the two links I provided from this very site, as well as numerous others, then you're doing nothing but showing yourself up there. As I said, best to check facts before making offensive comments to posters.
I did see the links, and yes, I now see the resemblance of the position of the autographs after juxtaposing the images. From checking, I noticed there are different PPs out there and it makes a difference in terms of which specific PP you are comparing the post to. Like I said, I am just voicing my opinion and observation. If you took offense to what I said, that is your problem, not mine.
luckyas13canbe wrote:
Before you both talk down to someone, and imply that someone with a heck of a lot of experience is stupid and/or blind, you might want to do some simple checks.
You can say whatever you want, but the fact is clearly out there.. I am just voicing my opinion, as are you. If you don't agree with my thoughts, that's your problem, not mine!
Should've Gone To Specsavers.
Unlike you two, I am not from the UK, so I am afraid not many would understand your inside joke. LOL
I took minor offence that you implied I was stupid as I couldn't see what you could, and was wrong, as well as being blind for thinking this was a PP. That was the problem there, when I presented the information you still decided to be arrogant. Might be my problem, but then again, I would suggest its yours. Anyways, case closed, as it's a PP, and there's no need for the OP to think they might have a genuine one, just because you're not capable of checking feedback on this very site.
Upload your pictures here: 
