Tags: autograph, robert, shaw

Views: 274

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This example has a lot of positive points,however the SH bothers me.

I noticed that too. Outside of that it looks great.

Joe, I can't tell if the s is connected to the h? It almost appears like the s connects to the a and the 8 (h) is added seperately which would be atypical. I agree with you, it does look good outside of that.

The "S" seems to be touching the "a" but does not one continuous stoke. The "h" is separate although it seems he signed the "S", then the "h", and then the "aw". This may be because of it being signed in person. Not sure although I think this signature is more likely to be genuine than not.

Ok, I see what your saying. He stops after the s then makes the h and picks up with the a. This makes the most sense but is still atypical. I think it could be a good one from Quint (the shark hunter)

You guys are funny. It is all one continuous signature formed correctly, the base of the S runs to the top of the h, then the h finishes by swooping into the a, just like a real Shaw, but this one was done by an excellent forger. They missed a few important points, but otherwise it is easily one of the best fakes I have seen. 

Thanks, Pete. That's helps a bunch. Had me fooled.

Pete, thanks for your point. I just don't see the continuous, smooth flow formed correctly-not the SHA anyway. In my opinion the rest of the signature is very close to authentic examples.

The scan is by no means clean and clear, but this is what I see, knowing Shaw's signature. The adjustment and line tracing is kind of crude, but I am not any kind of photoshop guy.

 

  

Pete, I have no doubt you are accurate in your opinion on the Shaw. But, I see, what appears to be an exaggerated "e" following the "t". Then an "8" shape. Then the "aw" with the the "exaggerated e" touching the "a". The bottom of the "S" does follow the top loop in on continuous pattern. Could be my eyes but appears to be 3 distinct breaks in the last name.

Joe, I agree with you and that's the reason why you and I were in this discussion in the first place-we both noticed something atypical. It just doesn't look right in the area of the SHA.
Pete, I agree that the scan is not the best-it gets fuzzy when I enlarge it. With that said I can't see all the fine details. I can see the SHA and it looks off-we were not trying to be funny and saw a real issue there. I think it's a good point.

RSS

© 2009-2017   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Community Manager.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service