Any logical person would come to the conclusion that it's a photocopy of the original. There's no way that every nuance of the original signature could be perfectly replicated in that fashion.
Any disagreement here lies within the semantics of the "Master Forger" statement. Does "master forger" imply it was actually drawn by hand? Or that the forger possesses state of the art technology to replicate the signature onto another piece of paper (and make it look like ink from a pen?)
Any claim that it was hand-drawn is preposterous, as this is simply an impossibility. So for me, it comes down to a semantics issue (or an interpretation of PSA's wording).
|