We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Harper Lee Signature Real?
Hi all,
What does everyone think about this Harper Lee signed book?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on
-
Interesting discussion. In my view, the jury is still out, but the questioned examples seem to have a few traits not typically seen in examples that are generally agreed to be authentic:
- The cross stroke of the H goes far to the left with a loop
- "ar" looks more like slurred "aw," whereas in unquestioned examples the r tends to be distinct and have a flat top.
- The questioned examples seem smoother compared to the authentic examples that have a rougher, jagged feel.
For the record, here are two examples I obtained directly from Harper Lee (through the mail) around 2003. I also have a letter in which I asked about the movie Capote... Ms. Lee tersely answered my questions by annotating my letter, but she did not sign it.
I don't feel comfortable making any definitive statement by what I've seen in this thread, but it does seem to bear further investigation.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Hi Steve,
That is about what I am seeing. Yours are just as I would now expect. Thanks for adding them and your observations.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin B. on
-
Here are three books the seller has. Claims he got them off of a family who was close to the author in Alabama. Seems to good to be true. Didn't have photos of the books until now. Just thought I'd share with the group.
-
-
From what I have written and posted, Martin,'s examples and from what Steve Z. wrote here, I am seeing 1 authentic style morphing over time, 1 secretarial, and 1 (currently) variable. A strict interpretation of what has been observed might suggest avoiding the 3 above. As Steve said, more work is necessary.
-
-
Yes, I'm passin. I'll go through a reputable group such as ABBA to purchase one. Will pay a little more but I'll be more confident in its authenticity.
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Peters on
-
I think it would be a pretty obvious mistake for a forger to add that swirl on the "H" which makes me tend to think these are genuine since there are so many facets that look good. Most, if not all, of these "swirly H's" that I have seen are on 40th Anniversary Editions. I don't know if that is significant or not but it seems to be the trend.
A number of those R&R signed books certainly are questionable.
-
-
I am looking at the nature of the H curl, the"ar" connection, The "r" itself of course, the post-"r" take off angle, as with the "ee's"...the "L".
I think a secretary/proxy, not a forger. These become very neat and curly at just one period it seems - perhaps late 1990's t0 2005 or so. 2002 surely. Findbooks do not, yours don't have that curly curl, not Steve's or any of the older examples, not Gary's or Gabe's. Or the check.
-
-
-
The hand on that note matches the RR check ("January"), but both signatures (check and note) are quite different to the "possibly secretarial" PSA/book style from the 1990's-2005 shown in the middle below :
The "H" and its slant, the "ar", the neat curly florid smooth look...all the other things mentioned. But more work needs to be done. Is the check smooth and neat? What about the other examples of her hand?
The RR check:
-
-
There is a 35th Anniversary Edition featuring the "swirly H" currently on Ebay that has been authenticated by PSA.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/186056527481?hash=item2b51d54e79:g:msEAAOS...
-
-
Yes, that matches the very first one I showed when I asked if this style is secretarial - that was a PSA exemplar from PSA facts. I do not think it is genuine. The time period is also correct. It contains all the problematic features though.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
