Darocker, What's this?

[lisu]

I think the auto is fake, and only because I have seen a lot of Lincy's autos.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="Jeff N."w966a6l]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.

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'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.

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?[/quotew966a6l]

I'm having a discussion about the authenticity of autographs on a baseball card board. Isn't that what this is for? Or is it for you to continually violate rule #1? Maybe the latter.

So, you're saying that there's no possible explanation that Lincecum significantly changed his signature between signing 500 refractor autos, 2? hundred xfractor autos, and then got to the 50 golds so that his signature changed minorly? Isn't it logical that his signature would differ less when signing the same refractor and differ more when signing the base refractors?

Please explain how this "could be an IP autograph, but that's not possible.". Are you saying that this could be an autograph he would have signed at the stadium but not sitting down and signing cards? There is absolutely no logic behind that statement. If you accept that he could sign it in one place looking like that but not somewhere else - there's no logic behind that. Isn't every autograph essentially an "IP" autograph? Unless there's an autopen involved......

I don't know if they're real or not; I don't really care. My gut instinct is that the refractor is probably fake. I'd want to compare it to other refractors, not gold refractors, because if they were all signed at once, they would look more similar to the refractors than the golds. As for Topps' statement that all backdoored cards are fake-- think about basic PR. Of COURSE they're going to say that. Assuming that there are 500 #ed refractor autos, and 10-20-30 hit the market without serial numbering, that affects the value of the card and consumer confidence. It's a smart PR move to say that they're fake, whether they are or not.

I just find it amazing that if someone offers a differing opinion to the norm (i.e. Razor), that you have to jump down one's throat with personal attacks.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="Jeff N.":2fk7vrtg]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.

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.

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::

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?[/quote:2fk7vrtg]

PLEASE don't lie. When I responded to your post, only "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." was there. You added all of the other things that I responded to later regarding hitting the BIN and sitting with Mr. Spence.

As to "I am the one who edits all of my posts" you'll see that any editing I do is after I hit the submit button and reread the post. My edits are almost always contemporaneous with the posting.

 

[beefycheddar]

http://cgi.ebay.com/07-Bowman-Chrome-Ti ... 286.c0.m14[/url]

Here is another fake.
http://cgi.ebay.com/TIM-LINCECUM-2007-B ... 286.c0.m14

http://cgi.ebay.com/TIM-LINCECUM-2007-B ... 286.c0.m14

Neither show scans of back, I would guarentee there is no SN. Let's just say hypothetically that a lot got laid off at Topps recently. Now TONS of none SN'd cards and questionable autographs are showing up. It's not good news all around. Tons of fake are now popping up on Ebay. I think you can verify that it's a fake at this point, but of course you'll argue all day. It's your job to so I can sort of understand, but why take work to a hobby.

 

[beefycheddar]

[quote="Jeff N.":1q1cpgzy]

[quote="Jeff N.":1q1cpgzy]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.

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.

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::

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?[/quote:1q1cpgzy]

PLEASE don't lie. When I responded to your post, only "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." was there. You added all of the other things that I responded to later regarding hitting the BIN and sitting with Mr. Spence.

As to "I am the one who edits all of my posts" you'll see that any editing I do is after I hit the submit button and reread the post. My edits are almost always contemporaneous with the posting.[/quote:1q1cpgzy]

Sorry I had an idea of something to add after I hit post. I changed zero content, I added to it. Do not try to discredit what I say with bending it.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

http://cgi.ebay.com/07-Bowman-Chrome-Ti ... 286.c0.m14[/url]

Here is another fake.
http://cgi.ebay.com/TIM-LINCECUM-2007-B ... 286.c0.m14

http://cgi.ebay.com/TIM-LINCECUM-2007-B ... 286.c0.m14

Neither show scans of back, I would guarentee there is no SN. Let's just say hypothetically that a lot got laid off at Topps recently. Now TONS of none SN'd cards and questionable autographs are showing up. It's not good news all around. Tons of fake are now popping up on Ebay. I think you can verify that it's a fake at this point, but of course you'll argue all day. It's your job to so I can sort of understand, but why take work to a hobby.[/quote:352vlpg6]

I don't know if they're real or not; I don't really care. My gut instinct is that the refractor is probably fake.

 

[andyduke86]

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.

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.

I agree with you totally beefycheddar. If someone has to point out the similarities/differences in an autograph to you, then you obviously don't understand a thing about how to tell if one is fake or real. It's not that difficult, but some folks just don't get it and continue to point out insignificant differences in signatures. Just because 2 autos don't look exactly the same doesn't mean they are different. The 2 golds have obvious similarities and the differences are mere variations. I'd say this ref. looks like a fake. It could be real though, but I would bet fake.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

http://cgi.ebay.com/07-Bowman-Chrome-Ti ... 286.c0.m14[/url]

Here is another fake.
http://cgi.ebay.com/TIM-LINCECUM-2007-B ... 286.c0.m14

http://cgi.ebay.com/TIM-LINCECUM-2007-B ... 286.c0.m14

Neither show scans of back, I would guarentee there is no SN. Let's just say hypothetically that a lot got laid off at Topps recently. Now TONS of none SN'd cards and questionable autographs are showing up. It's not good news all around. Tons of fake are now popping up on Ebay. I think you can verify that it's a fake at this point, but of course you'll argue all day. It's your job to so I can sort of understand, but why take work to a hobby.[/quote:29gpqy6e]

I don't know if they're real or not; I don't really care. My gut instinct is that the refractor is probably fake.

[/quote:29gpqy6e]

By the way, the bottom link you provided -- the seller indicated there's a serial # of 238/500. I've never scanned a serial # unless it was 10 or less. I don't hold this seller's feet to the fire for not doing it, especially when he indicates the exact serial #.

http://cgi.ebay.com/TIM-LINCECUM-2007-B ... 286.c0.m14

 

[KLARNOLD]

I don't sign my name the same everytime and I can prove it...

 

[mchenrycards]

Well as odd as it seems I happen to agree with Jeff on this one.

I guess this arguement is why I gave up on autographs a long time ago. I would like to have an autograph of every hall of famer but since many are no longer with us I cannot personally verify that the item I have in my collection is signed by him because I personally did not witness it. A sticker on the back of a card saying an auto is authentic does not make it so. There has been too many instances where autos were certified by card companies only to find out they are not real and the athlete's wife, mother, brother,friend....signed them. So if this Lincy auto is real or not..... we really dont know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Seriously though...why must someone always be jumped on and attacked when a differing opinion is presented. Jeff didnt attack anyone but offered his opinion. As someone who is well aware of the reputation Jeff has had in the past I still have to wonder why the hatred for him. He is only stating his opinion just like everyone else. If we want to draw new people to this website it might be best to tone down the personal stuff and have a healthy debate on whatever topic that is being discussed. I just dont think the attacks, because of a opinion, has a place here on the boards! We need to encourage a healthy debate and not turn threads into a pissing match!

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I don't sign my name the same everytime and I can prove it...

Thank you for the mature and intellectual addition to this discussion.

 

[matchpenalty]

Fake.

Everything in that auto looks bad compared to legit Lincey autos. Even with the chicken scratch auto he has.

 

[mchenrycards]

I don't sign my name the same everytime and I can prove it...

Thank you for the mature and intellectual addition to this discussion.

I am not sure a mature discussion can be had here. I thought since the kids were all back in school things would change somewhat during the day but I guess I was wrong.

 

[Jurgy25]

I've dealt with A-Train before and he is a good guy, but wouldn't touch that auto.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

The one on the left is the "non serial #ed card". The one on the right is from the auction that Beefycheddar posted and I quoted as being allegedly serial #ed, and, if allegedly serial #ed, authentic.

Obviously, the GRs are what they are.

See a difference? All four look different.

That being said, I wouldn't trust the non serial #ed ones...

 

[xcantgobackx]

Here's an auction for a Refractor with no numbering on the back (not that I can see. Kind of a crappy scan). The description states he received it as a replacement from Topps.

I don't know what this means, nor am I trying to side with anyone here, nor am I trying to prove a point. Just saw it and thought it was interesting and relevant to the discussion.

http://cgi.ebay.com/2006-06-Bowman-Chro ... 286.c0.m14

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Here's an auction for a Refractor with no numbering on the back (not that I can see. Kind of a crappy scan). The description states he received it as a replacement from Topps.

I don't know what this means, nor am I trying to side with anyone here, nor am I trying to prove a point. Just saw it and thought it was interesting and relevant to the discussion.

http://cgi.ebay.com/2006-06-Bowman-Chro ... 286.c0.m14

Thank you for posting. That's very telling.

Taking a look at the auction, the picture of the auto is pretty bad.

However... look at the back of the card. It has no serial #ing, but it has THE HOLOGRAM on it!

So, either one of three scenarios exist, given Topps' claim that these are forgeries.

1) The seller faked the auto and put a hologram sticker on the back.

2) Topps produced the cards and before even sending the cards to the player for signature, slapped the genuine hologram on the back and the seller faked the autos.

3) IT'S A REAL AUTO RECEIVED FROM LINCECUM, JUST NOT SERIAL #ED. For all we know, there may be 50 cards of the 500 that were never serial #ed. And Topps lies.

My money is on #3.

 

[beefycheddar]

Aflacs proved how easy it is to transfer a holo. Topps holograms do not come apart when moved like MLB authentic.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Aflacs proved how easy it is to transfer a holo. Topps holograms do not come apart when moved like MLB authentic.

See #1 above.

Possible.

I suspect #3.

 

[G $MONEY$]

Fake.

Everything in that auto looks bad compared to legit Lincey autos. Even with the chicken scratch auto he has.

+1,