- Thread starter
- #1
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Darocker, What's this?
- Thread starter sfnorton
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
darocker80
New member
scan or ban!!!sfnorton said:
Card Magnet
New member
WoundedDuck
Active member
- Aug 23, 2008
- 2,904
- 2
Is it just me or does the auto look very fake on that unnumbered refractor to anyone else?
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
I'd say that is not a legit Lince auto.
Bob Loblaw
Active member
YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
Look at the differences in the two legitimate gold refractors above! Dude doesn't have a consistent auto!
I LOVE how everyone is on the fake bandwagon here...
Look at the differences in the two legitimate gold refractors above! Dude doesn't have a consistent auto!
I LOVE how everyone is on the fake bandwagon here...
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
Jeff N. said:
Both of the golds have particular markings to both that this one has none of. The pressure points of the autograph are completely different on both
If Topps had unnumbered versions, why would they pay to have ones signed that weren't going to be in packs when they already hold back some numbered versions.
WoundedDuck
Active member
- Aug 23, 2008
- 2,904
- 2
Jeff N. said:
each of the golds have differences, but similarities as well....the auto on this strange unnumbered refractor looks completely different to me in terms of angles and pressure exerted at different points of the signature. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Lincecum autos or fake autos by any means and this could very well be authentic. I'm just saying it looks fishy to me. It would make a lot of sense that if this was meant to be a replacement and was back doored, then perhaps it wasn't signed and someone tried to forge it for the sale. I'm not saying conclusively that's what happened, but to me it makes sense. Feel free to make your own judgement, that's why I asked what others thought.
ChasHawk
New member
Looks ridiculously fake to me.
Tomlinson21RB
Active member
beefycheddar said:
An L in cursive loops at the bottom left of the letter and not at the end. You can see the loop most clearly in the 2nd gold auto in darockers sig, but you can see where he made the motion for the loop in the first too. I'd be willing to be money that it's a fake auto.
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Almost everything about the two gold refractor autographs are different. To that extent, all three autographs are different. Assume everything is counterfeit and you enjoy nothing.
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
Jeff N. said:
There are quite a few things on the two golds that are the same, try to always start an argument and no one respects you. I've sat with James Spence and talked over the exact things they look for with fakes, and looking at points where the pen hits the card being the same on the golds, and not the ref are easy tell tale signs.
Assume everything is real when tons of Topps stuff is being backdoored now, and you get ripped off Jeff. Feel free to hit the BIN and sub it to JSA if you feel it is so real.
Bob Loblaw
Active member
beefycheddar said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about, or why you need to make a personal attack at all. Personal attacks are so not necessary on this board. Isn't there a #1 rule written somewhere that you're violating?
The fact is, other than the color of the card, the autographs on the two gold refractors look completely different.
1. The beginning of the T, on the far left side of the auto, has different amounts of ink on it.
2. "Tim" has a bump for the i in the 1st one, none in the 2nd one.
3. The L intersects with the T in the 2nd auto, not in the first.
4. The L has a curly circle at the bottom of it on the 2nd, whereas the first comes to a point.
5. After the curly circle of the L, the auto swooshes up, then down in the 2nd. The first only has a straight line going up.
They look completely different. While I'm sure he signed them both -- my only point is that autographs change. When the auto is as abbreviated as Lincecum's is, subtle changes are much more prominent than, say, should Sebastian Janokowski sign a full name auto.
FWIW, the base refractor looks like a poor signature as well. But given the two gold refractors, it's clear that he does vary his signature.
markakis8
Active member
- Oct 31, 2008
- 12,081
- 2
i think they are all fake. even the golds.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, or why you need to make a personal attack at all. Personal attacks are so not necessary on this board. Isn't there a #1 rule written somewhere that you're violating?
The fact is, other than the color of the card, the autographs on the two gold refractors look completely different.
1. The beginning of the T, on the far left side of the auto, has different amounts of ink on it.
2. "Tim" has a bump for the i in the 1st one, none in the 2nd one.
3. The L intersects with the T in the 2nd auto, not in the first.
4. The L has a curly circle at the bottom of it on the 2nd, whereas the first comes to a point.
5. After the curly circle of the L, the auto swooshes up, then down in the 2nd. The first only has a straight line going up.
They look completely different. While I'm sure he signed them both -- my only point is that autographs change. When the auto is as abbreviated as Lincecum's is, subtle changes are much more prominent than, say, should Sebastian Janokowski sign a full name auto.
FWIW, the base refractor looks like a poor signature as well. But given the two gold refractors, it's clear that he does vary his signature.[/quote:zqix0675]
Jeff N. said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about, or why you need to make a personal attack at all. Personal attacks are so not necessary on this board. Isn't there a #1 rule written somewhere that you're violating?
The fact is, other than the color of the card, the autographs on the two gold refractors look completely different.
1. The beginning of the T, on the far left side of the auto, has different amounts of ink on it.
2. "Tim" has a bump for the i in the 1st one, none in the 2nd one.
3. The L intersects with the T in the 2nd auto, not in the first.
4. The L has a curly circle at the bottom of it on the 2nd, whereas the first comes to a point.
5. After the curly circle of the L, the auto swooshes up, then down in the 2nd. The first only has a straight line going up.
They look completely different. While I'm sure he signed them both -- my only point is that autographs change. When the auto is as abbreviated as Lincecum's is, subtle changes are much more prominent than, say, should Sebastian Janokowski sign a full name auto.
FWIW, the base refractor looks like a poor signature as well. But given the two gold refractors, it's clear that he does vary his signature.[/quote:zqix0675]
Bob Loblaw
Active member
beefycheddar said:
Nice edit of your post.
I don't collect him, therefore, I'm not hitting any BIN.
So, sitting down with James Spence makes you an expert? Or did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night? When will your authentication service begin? I suppose anyone who has a meal with Alan Greenspan becomes a financial expert; Emeril Lagassi becomes an excellent chef; Dr. Phil a psychiatrist; Jon Gosselin a tool?
::facepalm::
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
Jeff N. said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about, or why you need to make a personal attack at all. Personal attacks are so not necessary on this board. Isn't there a #1 rule written somewhere that you're violating?
The fact is, other than the color of the card, the autographs on the two gold refractors look completely different.
1. The beginning of the T, on the far left side of the auto, has different amounts of ink on it.
2. "Tim" has a bump for the i in the 1st one, none in the 2nd one.
3. The L intersects with the T in the 2nd auto, not in the first.
4. The L has a curly circle at the bottom of it on the 2nd, whereas the first comes to a point.
5. After the curly circle of the L, the auto swooshes up, then down in the 2nd. The first only has a straight line going up.
They look completely different. While I'm sure he signed them both -- my only point is that autographs change. When the auto is as abbreviated as Lincecum's is, subtle changes are much more prominent than, say, should Sebastian Janokowski sign a full name auto.
FWIW, the base refractor looks like a poor signature as well. But given the two gold refractors, it's clear that he does vary his signature.[/quote:3oe9xwfr]
You can play mister innocent that's fine. I gave coherent reasons why it's a fake, I have many other sources that can confirm it. The autograph variations on the golds are simple to explain, between the refractor and the golds the only explanation would be that the ref is an IP autograph, but in the case of this card that is not possible unless it was a backdoored card. Unfortunately with backdoored Topps cards that are not numbered, they also are not autographed. This I have confirmed with Topps employees today.
I think I am speaking with a decent bit of knowledge behind what I am saying, while you are just blindly trying to start an arguement. What's wrong no Razor threads lately for you to jump in?
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
Jeff N. said:
Nice edit of your post.
I don't collect him, therefore, I'm not hitting any BIN.
So, sitting down with James Spence makes you an expert? Or did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night? When will your authentication service begin? I suppose anyone who has a meal with Alan Greenspan becomes a financial expert.
::facepalm::[/quote:wouf4qo6]
What did I edit? Nothing. If I changed it at all it was just to add the "go ahead and buy it" part. You are the one who edits all your posts, where is that pot/kettle/black image?
Similar threads
