We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.
Authenticity is Everything
TWO JFK 1954 TLS Real or Secretary ? Please Help !
Hi, I am new here but have scoured these threads for quite a while. I am somewhat of a collector (mainly Beatles) but these items are more of a "personal" nature to me as they were sent to my father. I have read, compared and gotten many opinions over the years regarding these letters and am well aware that Kennedy signatures are amongst the hardest to authenticate. It is my hope to get Andreas Wiemer and Steve Cyrkin involved in this discussion as their input in previous discussions has been invaluable.
I have TWO JFK letters signed nine days apart and are drastically different. Mr. Wiemer's recent study and discussion notes has raised issues regarding the January 11th signature. Mainly, the stopping after the "e" in Kennedy as opposed to stopping after the "n" - in a previous discussion, he has termed this WRONG, although, admittedly, at one time thought this "style" was authentic.
The second letter dated January 20th is a completely different style (obviously). However, it incorporates styles from earlier authentic Kennedy signatures (1950-1952), the almost "V" like "K" in Kennedy, the "8" style "J" in John, as well as the skipping of the second "e" in Kennedy and the "d" along with the previously seen swooping "Y".
Many years ago, John Reznikoff gave these a cursory "looks good" but I know that a lot of new info has come out since that time.
These letters pertain to my father becoming a US citizen and I am very happy to have them in my possession. I have gone through the trouble of mounting and displaying one of them in my home (I'll reveal which one after I get opinions - LOL). I also have the "franked" envelopes that they came in and will provide photos if that would help at all.
I am simply trying to get the most informed opinions regarding this so that I can confidently display it and pass on to my children. Please help. Please ask any questions if I have missed anything and I greatly appreciate your feedback. I look forward to hearing from you.
Tags: Historical, JFK, TLS, presidential
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
This is a very educational discussion. Charles Hamilton passed away over 20 years ago, but it's a testament to his study, dedication and expertise that his 1983 book, "American Autographs," is still considered the foundation of a presidential autograph library 35 years after it was published.
As time goes on, knowledge grows. Kennedy died only 20 years before "American Autographs" was published and a large amount of new material has come into the hobby and been studied since then. We owe Hamilton our gratitude for providing the base of knowledge that has been built on for decades now.
Just because Hamilton's book has some information that was later found to be incorrect doesn't lessen his achievements and status in historical autographs. Just like Jesse Owens's weren't lessened when Usain Bolt eclipsed him in the 100-meter.
-
Permalink Reply by Rfitzz on
-
Steve, I completely agree. I admire Charles Hamilton’s work and all of the others who have dedicated their time and efforts to this endeavor. Certainly not an easy task. His work and the others who continue it, has helped pave the way for expanding on that knowledge and getting closer to more definitive truths regarding autographs. Kennedy is certainly one of the most confusing subjects in this field and I appreciate everyone’s interest and input. Truly an educational discussion.
i apologize to the other members on this thread for getting sidetracked from our discussions with my previous response. I look forward to continuing this. Thanks
-
Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on
-
No need to apologize, Rfitzz.
-
-
Steve, 100% true!
-
Permalink Reply by Paulrichards on
-
Herman: I am truly sorry if my questions about secretarial signatures and who signed what offended you. I’m just trying to reconcile certain inconsistencies I see . No one, certainly not me is questioning your expertise nor your significant contributions to the hobby.
-
-
No offense taken, Paulrichards. You did not offend me. The only way an autograph collector can learn is by asking questions.
-
Permalink Reply by Andreas Wiemer on
-
Hello,
please find attached a study regarding the signature style of the letter dated January 11, 1954. The study speaks for itself. Also attached two authentic signatures from July 1953 and February 1954 - both are very similar. Compare the January 20, 1954 letter with this signatures ...
Regards,
Andreas
- Attachments: No photo uploads here
-
-
Thank you, Andreas.
Rfitzz, Andreas's studies will provide you the answers you need.
-
-
Andreas, thank you so much for your time and your input. Am I to surmise that the January 11th signature falls into a "questionable" category or simply not authentic ? I realize you noted that their is an unlikely possibility the JFK switched signature styles during that period, however, you still list those examples as questionable.
Regarding the January 20th signature. I've never had much faith in it from the start and, obviously, your examples are further proof of that.
Thank you again for your time and, if at all possible, please clarify for me my question regarding the January 11th signature. Also, thank you, too, Steve for all of your assistance.
-
-
"Questionable" is a commonly used polite term that means the person strongly believes an autograph is not genuine, and often is sure an autographs is not genuine.
Here's your JFK surrounded by the 2 Andreas calls questionable, and 4 he believes are genuine:
For me, Andreas's exemplars show that the JFK in your letter is very similar to the secretarials labeled "Questionable" in his references.
Andreas's study gives some great "tells" to look for. There's another tell I noticed based on his exemplars, the connection from the O to H of John:
In all 3 secretarials, the stroke from the O to H is either straight or slightly concave on the upside of the stroke; and the connection to the H is crisp and pointed.
On all 4 authentic exemplars, the same area is less rigid and concave on the downside of the stroke; and the connection to the H is not pointed, it's soft and more like a curve.
-
-
Thank you Steve, I appreciate your response. I agree that the "O - H" thing is a serious "tell". I will continue my research and see if that theory holds true across other known examples as well. Thanks for taking the time as well.
Blog Posts
Ebay Seller Smpsportscards Sells Forged Counterfeit Willie Mays 1996-97 Topps Autograph Card
Posted by CJCollector on November 11, 2024 at 6:03pm 0 Comments 1 Like
COA CSA Authentic Forged Babe Ruth Cut Autograph Laughable
Posted by CJCollector on November 9, 2024 at 2:32pm 7 Comments 0 Likes
Ebay Seller Tsuch67 Sells Forged Mickey Mantle Duke Snider Willie Mays Baseball
Posted by CJCollector on October 30, 2024 at 3:13pm 2 Comments 0 Likes
Photos
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
