Autograph studies, can anyone do them without ever having the exemplars in front of them?

I have seen many autograph studies including the ones I have done myself. Most of the ones I give kudos to are ones from authenticators that I know have actually held the autographs in front of them and drawn a conclusion. There was one done recently from some unknown that did a study on Jimi Hendrix that has only had a couple of Hendrix autographs that he owned. Most of the ones that he used in the study were from ones that were on the internet or catalogs yet he never viewed them in person. A small address book with many signed pages that I authenticated for Heritage Auctions that sold @ Christies awhile ago is one that comes to mind with little thought. How could someone like Grant Van Der Sleet or better known as "The Vanderhoven" make such a lengthy study of autographs he never saw in person? How could he make such claims that he is the end all of Hendrix autographs yet he has rarely seen these rare morsels in front of him. How could he make such claims having never examined the ink, the smell, the texture of the paper? Is he really some God that can make such statements through a computer screen or a catalog? I know I have been called out and sued for supposedly doing the same thing. Is he held to a higher level then a known handwriting expert? Other goofs like Steve Koschall have tried to do the same. Any thoughts?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mike aring on November 27, 2011 at 9:21am

yeah, you may be right. and again, i was NEVER saying you made it up. I can't believe that any company would name themselves this!!! seriously. but the name says it all.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CEE GEE on November 27, 2011 at 7:14am

Roger....don't waste your time...that guy obviously is just a childish bag of wind....with fabricated stories and stack of BS fairy tale blogs about getting quick opinions from PSA giving out bad opinions on items so they can purchase them for themselves...don't stoop to that level...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike aring on November 27, 2011 at 7:29am

actually, for calling him out for doing an autograph study on something that he knows nothing (or at least very little) about, i think that's an excellent idea. Roger, if you can just stick to ripping him based on his inexperience and LACK OF SKILL, i think that will be so much better. don't sink to his level with the childishness and we'll all keep reading, and get more people involved.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on November 27, 2011 at 9:00am

I just asked a question to the readers here. Readers elsewhere decide to talk about male genitalia. I won't let that kind of stuff bother me any more. We have some real issues to deal with and this question I asked is one of them.

Terrier, what you are doing is what you and all other collectors should be doing. Use these known legit sites to educate yourself in buying authentic material. Even if you don't buy from me feel free to use my catalog as an exemplar file. The items up on my site are in my hand and have been looked over and authenticated by me. Feel safe that what you are viewing are real when you look at my site.

What I don't agree with is how could someone write a study (and I mean anyone not just the Hendrix one) that have not had these signatures in front of them? What they are really doing is using the work that someone else has done; like looking at these in person, studying them correctly and then putting their name on it. On one hand they are praising the ones who have done the work but then not giving them any credit. In fact; they then attack the people who did the work originally. Then when confronted avoid the questions but spend countless hours looking for grammar errors in anything someone has ever written. One of these crooks went to a site that I own and went through every single page to find an error. I am so glad that I have better things to do like be with my family, go to church, do my work, record my music, write songs, travel and spend time with my wife instead of spending countless hours spell checking someone's writing.

I've said it before that you can tell if an autograph is fake or not from a good scan because if the shape of the signature is not correct there is no need to go any further. Age of the paper, ink etc are not a factor. What you can't do is tell if something is real from a scan. The shape of the signature could be correct but it could be a color copy or a pre-printed photo or one of many other things. Because of the very small category I chose to study; music, and the fact that I have done this for over 22 years most of the items that I see for sale now I have seen before in person, whether in my catalog or at shows or friends' collections.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon O'Steen on November 27, 2011 at 11:39am

I use your site all the time as a tool for exemplars. Especially since I got burned with the 3 that I posted on another thread recently. But I still can't say that I feel that confident in making the decision anymore. The Clapton that I posted is ridiculously similar to an exemplar that you posted in your Eric Clapton study on AAT. But Steve as well as others, including myself, think it is a forgery. So, to say that I am quite hesitant now on any study, regardless of who, is an understatement. But you are correct in the fact that a proper study cannot be done unless you have the auto/s in front of you.

And, I agree with Mike and Cee Gee. Don't let that other stuff get to you. All of us on this site are not always going to see eye to eye. Quite frankly, that is the beauty of it. But the majority of us respect each and every person's opinion, good or bad. Just keep doing what you are doing.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on November 27, 2011 at 2:47pm

Well said.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on November 28, 2011 at 5:45pm

The Hendrix study alone should prove that not just anyone (who has never seen 100's of Hendrix autographs in person) should write a study on that person. You can't "will" an autograph to be authentic. You can't close your eyes and twinkle your nose and hope that an autograph will be authentic. You have to back it up with facts, not BS.

In a study you can't post tidbits of an autographs to use as comparisons. The full autograph needs to be shown to prove that the autograph that is used as an exemplar is indeed authentic. Forgers are great at doing one part or another of an autograph nearly perfect; but it's the whole autograph that tells the true story. In the Hendrix study by Grant Vander Streek from NoCal he uses many fragments of autographs to try to prove a point on authenticity when in fact he should be showing the full autograph so at least the general public has something to show that the autograph displayed is indeed authentic. If you read any of my autograph studies I show the full autograph so there is no doubt to its authenticity. This is the common error of wannabe authenticators doing studies. This study would be thrown out of court in a second as there is no proof whether the signatures in the study are authentic or not. I would love to hear some wannabe authenticator say "no but your honor the rest of the signature is in fact authentic, I promise, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye". That one always works...in make believe land.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on November 28, 2011 at 9:30pm

aha, so this is where the new battleground is... and i have been missing all the fun. I for one feel it is always a good thing to push the envelope but also know when to say when. we can disagree but we don't have to be disagreeable and the latter part is where it has gotten out of hand way to often. I for one thought the "vanderhoven" made excellent points on Gleason and a number of others until like a little crybaby he deletes his posts. However, when disagreements end up escalating into personal attacks a moderator needs to act and "being banished" imho is not a solution. I long ago, and others have agreed, that we need a different type of impartial moderator. the kind who simply delete comments and repost the "rules". Of course, I'm reminded of Sundance - there are no rules.. lol.

would seem to me that I'd opt to go with Epperson's opinion more often than not on music. will he may make an error at times (his ratio is much better than a great many even according to many of his critics) - yes he will and he is not bashful about saying so when it occurs. Noone is perfect. It's how they "man up" that counts.

as far as this silly debate on Hendrix wages on it reminds me of a tune;

This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...

when disagreements start getting personal then there cannot be any winners and whatever legit argument was trying to be surfaced is lost as we collectors just change the channel.