We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
grace kelly and rainier please
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Istvan Szabo, Ifj. on
-
I've just made a longer CSI analysis for my one Gracie signature, so I can tell that Grace definitely seems genuine and it is from the "after-April 1956" era. As for Ranier... well, I'm not a fan of him, so I don't know his signature.
However be advised. I've seen exactly the very same item on EBay. If not you're the one who have purchased this about a one, one and a half week ago, or purchasing from the new owner, someone is making a mass production of this actual item. If I recall correctly this was sold for about $137 or 187, or something in between.
-
Permalink Reply by michelle on
-
thanks for reply. I am the new owner, but just couldn't find another Kelly fan to comment before the auction ended & you never know here on e bay...Rainier's looks similar from the other examples I could find to compare it to altho I don't find following his letter formation easy at all but Kelly's sig is also particularly easy to copy because of the formation of some of the letters. what a photogenic woman she was as is Charlotte; - Caroline's daughter.
-
-
So you was the one who took this away from me. Nice to meet you. :D I believe I put the starting bet on this particular piece, but only a very low bet as I rarely collect anything from Grace beyond April 1956. By some reason I prefer her actress era the most. And true, Gracie's signature is relatively easy to copy, but I haven't met with many forgeries at all. The only exception is what I've acquired last time, which is a mystery as it doesn't seem to be Gracie's signature, yet in depth analysis shows it seems to be regardless it seems different. Plus the seller's story also checks out completely. I got every detail and with some P.I. work I was able to look after and trace back the whole origin story back to the 50s.
By the way here is a sample for Gracie De Monaco, Rainier, young Caroline and Albert.http://nationalarchives.ie/topics/PRES/image_pages/VB1.htm
Rainier seems to be correct. The only difference is the M in the Monaco, but presumably that's not a standard in his signature. Here is another one which matches with yours.
-
-
And very nice to meet you too! Thanks for the links as I find computing quite difficult so it looks as if Rainier is also correct altho what a nightmare sig to decipher. You need a degree to fathom it out
Yes I also prefer collecting stuff from her Holywood period as well. I have found loads of fake Graces' on ebay which is why I get so nervous. Are you familiar with Stephanie's sig? They are similar in formation in some ways. Albert I am not familiar with.
I liked the fact that this particular item was a one off and quite unusual otherwise I wouldn't have gone for it as Ranier's sig is quite difficult to decipher
I am pleased that your Grace turned out to be genuine. regards
-
-
Yeah. Ranier's signature seems to be a nightmare to decipher. :) And nope, I'm not really familiar with Stephanie's sig either. My period and expertise is the November 12 1929 - April 18-19 1956 era. After that, almost complete blackout.
Well, my one still did not turn out as 100% genuine, however the overlaying forensic technique, the background story, the previous owner's identity shows that its highly possible. But I've just sent that particular piece, along with all the details to the F.B.I. Hopefully their forensics can give some idea in this matter. But I also start to believe that this piece is something really weird and unique, one way or another. Forgers doesn't figure out background stories like this, and you can't check them out in this depth as I was able to. But I've found even the death certificate and SSN of the collector and was able to trace everything forward to connect her to the seller (He is her grandchild), or backward to connect her and confirm the background story. So there is a continuity, something what forged elements doesn't have. Plus the whole sale really looked like as a true heritage sale, not as a "I've plenty signatures with COA, but I don't have a valid backstory" sales, what most forgers have. There were plenty signed photos, along with some old antique paintings, antique urns and such. So it was just like the treasures of an old lady collector what the family is selling. Plus all the other signatures checked out. This one is the one which seems different for the first glance. But as Grace was one of her favorites, I highly doubt that this one would be the only fake in her inventory, while all the rest is genuine. So I truly start to believe that my one is also genuine, even if it doesn't seem as one for the first glance. And if what you say is true, that there are loads of fake Graces', in this case there is a chance that my one is the real deal exactly because of the difference, yet in depth match, and believable and checkable background story. As Sherlock said; "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth." :)
-
-
Well I'll be ever so interested to know what forensics make of it; - but I have never seen one like yours before; - but it seems strange that a forger would do such an obvious signature which would be commented on. However, it could be a genuine sig with a mixture of different lettering , a bit like Bergman's if you know what I mean who changed her writing style and formation quite regularly throughout her signing career. The elderly lady obviously is genuine as is her grandson, but may not have known that the sig may not have been genuine. However, what is not in doubt is that the photo is absolutely stunning
-
-
I've spoken with the grandson a bit more yesterday and he told that her grandmother told a few times to him and the family that it was signed in person (So as many others in her collection. But she was proud for Gracie one of the most.). The ones that were signed via requests, those signed photos had the envelope that with they've arrived as well. I've also seen those and each envelope was dated, some even for 1945, while the in person sigs were in a different album.
As for Bergman; the old lady also had one Bergman. That one also was acquired in person, yet that one also seemed different, than the known ones, yet it was also genuine as far as I was able to tell (I may also get that one into my collection as that one also looked great.).
So, I've double checked their background, I was able to even build up their family tree even before the birth date of the collector, I know even her SSN, mother's and father's name and such, and every part of the story checks out 100%. I've also made that overlaying forensic authentication, presumably you've seen in it in the other topic, and I also was able to build up this unknown signature from 5 other authentic ones (You can't really do that with fakes as they'll be almost 100% identical with one original without any difference, or it will has plenty parts that none of the originals ever had.). Plus I've found one which is pretty similar to this one and from the same era (The proportions, the arcs, loops, everything checks out, yet its different.).
I've seen some fake, but you couldn't do at least one of these two tricks with them, as a, it was 100% match of another signature, which is impossible if it's a real in person signed as there are no two completely identical signatures, b, it had elements that wasn't in any of the original, authentic signatures. But as you can see, here, you can do both tricks and each element had a 100% match somewhere, in a different authentic signature.
As you told there are many forgeries out there. But forgeries used to be almost the exact copies of the known ones. That's why I also start to believe that my Gracie signature is a real one. It has a rich, checkable, authentic background story, the in-depth analysis also shows 100% matches with her writing style. Its just different than the ones you can see on EBay (Which is the home of forgeries.). Actually many times my own signature is also different when I sign the postman's package paper, standing. Those signatures of mine are quite different than what I sign into my books near a table or what I put onto my arts (The best is if someone would compare my in person signature, my book signature with all my art signatures, they would say the first two is a fake, while in the reality the art signature is the one that I was able to write so beautifully only one time, than it landed in the scanner. Since that time I put that one onto my arts, while my true sig is a bit different, doesn't have two parts what my art sig has. So, I also have about three different style, in person standing, in person table and art signature. All three are different, none of them ever matches. Yet you can build up each of the signatures from all the others, just as I did with the questioned Gracie signature from the authentic ones.). So using this logic and after all the forensic work, I can believe it that this Gracie signature is genuine as it was signed in-person, presumably not near a table, but it was put against something, while Lady Gracie stood. So now I'll handle it, as a rare genuine. At least unless someone does not find something crucial, which kills my analysis.
Photos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
