We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

Charlton Heston Secretarial Signature Study

Hi:

At Steve Cyrkin's invitation, I'd like to call your attention to a signature study I've posted on my blog, Charlton Heston signature study by Steve Zarelli.

I believe I have identified the "tell" in Charlton Heston secretarial signatures, and if I am correct, the news is not good for most collectors. It appears that most Heston signed photos are secretarially signed.

Here is a synopsis:

The Theory
Photographs and other memorabilia sent to Mr. Heston's office were signed by a secretary. However, Mr. Heston did authentically sign books through-the-mail.

Real vs. Secretary
In authentic signatures, the R in "Charlton" is distinctly a lowercase "r" and less than half the height of the L. The first four letters are clearly "Char."

In secretarial signatures, the R looks much more like a lowercase "l" and is about the same height as the L. So, the first four letters appear to be "Chall."

I have attached two images to give you a small sampling.

For more details and images, please visit my blog at the link below.

I'd love to hear your feedback and thoughts on this. I fully anticipate some resistance to the theory, because denial is always the first step. In fact, I would love to be proved wrong, because that would mean I wasn't sitting on a bunch of secretary signed photos!

By way of introduction, I have been collecting since the early 90s and I am the UACC Ethics Director.

I look forward to the discussion.

The Collecting Obsession

Regards,

Steve Zarelli

Tags: Charlton, Forgery, Heston, Secretary, authenticating, autograph, secretarial

2 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Figure 1.jpg, 60 KB
Secretary 1.jpg, 37 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on March 11, 2011 at 4:39pm

I hear where you are coming from. And I do agree with you.

My collection of Heston Material goes back some 35 years.

My earliest authentic Heston Signature is an employment contract with Universal Pictures signed by Mr. Heston in 1954.

I have all the evidence necessary including my own in-person signatures that I aquired myself, to back up Rolf's and Steve Z's Studies.

Lawrence Groebel's article in the July 2008 issue of Autograph Magazine is great reference material, because it shows on page 54 a secretarial signed 8x10 that got in there, then on pages 54 &57 , the In-person signatures Groebel got Heston to sign.

I stand by ready for reactions.....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on March 11, 2011 at 4:56pm

I did not have Orlando's email address, but I did email PSA/DNA through their web site yesterday. Have not received a response yet.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 11, 2011 at 2:54pm

Deal.

We'll work on finding out who the secretary was.

You work on finding out who forged all those boxing autographs you say PSA/DNA got wrong.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on March 11, 2011 at 2:55pm

Travis, you need to get your head out of the sand on this one. If we take that tack then one could consider you have not proven anything with your boxing allegations as well.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on March 11, 2011 at 3:26pm

Wow...

Nobody has to prove anything.

The studies are based on many in-person signings , the questionaire that Heston answered for Rolf,

Legal documents like signed checks that go back to the 60's, Legal Contacts, The Topps Card signing and so on.

The written evidence speaks for itself........

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Zarrillo on March 11, 2011 at 3:30pm

The other thing to ask is why someone who did such an EXCELLENT job with the signature in every aspect except the double "L" - made this particular mistake - or WAS it a mistake? I propose that it was intentional so it would always be known what Heston really signed. A family member or long time secretary might just do that intentionally.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on March 11, 2011 at 3:34pm

Now that RZ is very interesting and just could have alot of merit. It does presuppose that forgers would then go for the most commonly accepted signature.