Panini, please explain this Prime card....something wrong here

[Ramjak Sports]

A customer of ours pulled this great Guy Lafleur card today in the store.
But there is one little problem.....

Who's partial autograph is on the patch? We don't think it is Guy lafleur's, but might be part of something else. Anyone help us out here?

I know that some of the Panini guys follow the forums, so our customer is quite concerned over this card. He was wondering if he can get an explaination for the partial auto, seemingly in ballpoint pen? I guess he is wondering if there is any other background information on the jersey it came from.

It does state that it is a game worn jersey, but nothing about the writing.

Lafleur.jpg

[Tanguayfan]

The subset is related to auto'd patches, hence the highlighted "mark" in Remarkable.

It loosk like it may have started to read "Best Wishes"

[RGM81]

That's what I was thinking - looks like part of an inscription.

[iidaemmi]

That's what I was thinking - looks like part of an inscription.

Also it could be his signature : http://www.ebay.com/itm/2008-09-UD-Black-Pride-of-a-Nation-Autographs-Patches-Guy-Lafleur-11-25-auto-/290760576677?pt=US_Hockey_Trading_Cards&hash=item4 3b2ae4ea5

He sign's that G sometimes weird.

harri

[penguinsChief]

I go with the Best Wishes +1

[Ramjak Sports]

Thats what we thought, that it was an autographed patch, but wouldn't panini also include that it is a authentic autograph as well on the card?

Our customer and we love the card, he is just wondering.

[Habitforming]

It has to be part of "best wishes" to make sense at all. It looks nothing like his auto, even if he was drunk.

[g-force]

Looks like an inscription. Rest of the autograph is probably on the 2/2 card.

[Tanguayfan]

Thats what we thought, that it was an autographed patch, but wouldn't panini also include that it is a authentic autograph as well on the card?

Our customer and we love the card, he is just wondering.

The jersey was likely purchased that way, therefore they would not be able to authenticate the signature, since it was not done at the request of the company or in the presence of a company representative. That and the fact that it's pointless to authenticate an autograph, when it's not the full signature (or in this case, even part of a signature, since it looks like it's not even part of his name)

[adamslogik]

Panini has already stated that those cards are NOT considered and autographed it, just a neat memorabilia hit.