XPost: alt.gossip.celebrities   
   From: hank4555hh@msn.com   
      
   On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:19:45 GMT, "Mr. Anderson"  wrote:   
      
   >nathan966re@msn.com (Nathan Relen) wrote in news:42e6f12a.159301437   
   >@news.easynews.com:   
   >   
   >> How about posting a scan of it so we can examine it closely and decide   
   >> if it is a real signature or a 'stamp'?   
   >   
   >This isn't a binaries group, so we can't post scans.   
   >   
      
      
   Post a link to where it can be seen.   
      
      
   >However, I can assure you that it is neither a stamp nor Charlize's   
   >Signature.  It is clearly a real signature, but the days of getting real   
   >sigs via this method died long ago.  In his brand new book, Starstruck,   
   >Michael Gross tells how the actress who played Lois Lane forged signatures   
   >for a famous, more modern actress for years.   
   >   
   >I'm operating under the assumption that it is SOP for these talent agencies   
   >hire a famous senior citizen actress who's been unemployed for decades, to   
   >sign these photos.  The signature is a little shaky, a characteristic of an   
   >old person's writing.  I'd like to find some way to learn who is doing the   
   >signing, but I'm sure if I called on the phone, it wouldn't do any good.   
   >   
   >Nonetheless, it is an "officially endorsed" forgery, which makes it more   
   >valuable than an unofficially endorsed forgery, which any shady   
   >collectibles dealer is capable of making.   
   >   
   >And hell, if the story comes out that it was being signed by another famous   
   >actress, in the twilight of her career, that has historical value, and it   
   >might also have signature value.   
   >   
   >What this business lacks is reliable catalogues of signatures.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)