We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Does anyone find this Blacula authentic?
I think this is a slick forgery - you? Seller has questionable and secretarial material. This appears well crafted but also atypical in many ways. I am finding some problem with everything I see here.
Opinions most welcome.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on
-
Personally, I would not want that one in my collection. I have not studied him well, but had thought about getting him a few years ago because I went to the Blacula movies when they were in the theater.
-
-
It was a great '70's movie! Thanks for responding as well. I think the questioned item too dense and oddly formed to fit in with the others especially in terms of the time period which I take to be late '80's or earlier '9o's. Generally, not spiky and too smooth when at that time he was starting to draw his signature slowly due to illness
-
-
The ending of the last name is problematic for me. The inscription seems out of place since it is not dedicated to anyone. I suppose the name might have been removed, but if so, that would give me pause too. Do you think the '72 was meant to mean when Blacula was made or was it the year he signed it? The Star Trek card while I have no doubt is authentic, I suspect must have been one of the last he signed. It shows to me he was getting tired and made the M different than usual.
-
-
Hi Scott. I don't think that was signed in '72. The "W" would be spikier as in the dated examples = not the smoother humped version seen in the later exemplars. But it all seems a simulation, and he appears to have favored lengthy inscriptions with dedications. It was released in '72 and I think that is what was noted. Online external quick opinion is $50. That would only be equal to my opinion to me and I might not believe it either way. It cost me nothing to post here and $4 to return. I think it is forgery but the eyes of all here are welcome. For $50 I'd need a lengthy "why". For me, that "W" is off, the baselines - so many things, including the lack of dedication. The "R". the "B" - on and on. His "e's". The 3rd "l"...
-
-
I do not think it was signed in 1972, but I have the feeling the '72 was meant for it to seem like it was. That would be a plus because of the movie coming out at that time. There was a lot of room after "Blacula" I would have thought if he meant to mean the year it came out, he would have put the 72 on same line. I try to go with first impressions anymore when it comes to buying things. If I find myself defending an autograph to myself, I pass. Have done that many times. The first three exemplars I like the best and my favorite is the first one. A very rare early signed photo.
-
-
I agree- first impressions. And I too prefer the 1953 -I own it. :-) Below is what I have. That is Marshall's copy of the trailer from 7/72 - his address in on the label and then was written over as I think he lent to to someone - bought from his son along with the 1953 photo. The original lobby card and the signed card are also enjoyable.
Click to enlarge all.
-
-
PS - the 1976 signature was signed sometime after 1976. Marshall was noting the what and when on the backs of some images. I have seen this before w him.
-
-
Here - the reverse of the top of an 8x10:
-
-
Here is a stunning SP dedicated and inscribed to "Forrest A." and I might guess who that is in this context. l made the writing more visible so the image will look odd.
-
-
That is a great signed photo. When I see Forrest A. I think of Forrest Ackerman but the hymn reference I don't in regards to him so I am probably mistaken. We used to sign that in church as a boy.
-
-
I was wondering what that was and why he wrote it. Thanks Scott. I thought it might be some prose or from a play.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
