All Discussions Tagged 'secretarial' - Autograph Live
2024-03-28T23:56:29Z
https://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=secretarial&feed=yes&xn_auth=no
Dwight Eisenhower: Real or Secretarial?
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2020-12-09:3524372:Topic:1566228
2020-12-09T01:08:13.364Z
kmansc
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/kmansc
<p>Hi, so here's one of my initial attempts to play self "authenticator". I found this Eisenhower TLS on on a fairly reputable auction site. It's also PSA pre-certified (I think that's their new version of the auction letter). To me, the signature has a lot of similarities with exemplars that I've found. However, what I don't like is the "s". In every single exemplar in Kenneth Rendell's book, and in all but one of the exemplars on PSA's website, the "s" in Eisenhower has no visible space…</p>
<p>Hi, so here's one of my initial attempts to play self "authenticator". I found this Eisenhower TLS on on a fairly reputable auction site. It's also PSA pre-certified (I think that's their new version of the auction letter). To me, the signature has a lot of similarities with exemplars that I've found. However, what I don't like is the "s". In every single exemplar in Kenneth Rendell's book, and in all but one of the exemplars on PSA's website, the "s" in Eisenhower has no visible space inside the letter. It looks more like a malformed, sloppy "i". However, in this item, there is clear, visible space inside the "s", as there would be in more proper cursive. So am I making a mountain out of a molehill or is this likely secretarial?</p>
Are secretarial autographs of any worth?
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2018-11-11:3524372:Topic:1278494
2018-11-11T12:19:13.622Z
Gabriela Vassa
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/GabrielaVassa
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>I know this is a very debatable and uneasy topic but I would like to know your opinion - do you think that the secretarial autographs are of any worth?</p>
<p>Because, on hand, in most cases, all important personalities did have their officially chosen people which would do some of the signing for them - as the amounts of (fan)mail would be probably unbearable or impossible for one person to answer - but on the other hand, the truth is that the original person did never…</p>
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>I know this is a very debatable and uneasy topic but I would like to know your opinion - do you think that the secretarial autographs are of any worth?</p>
<p>Because, on hand, in most cases, all important personalities did have their officially chosen people which would do some of the signing for them - as the amounts of (fan)mail would be probably unbearable or impossible for one person to answer - but on the other hand, the truth is that the original person did never signed it by hand.</p>
<p>What would you say, do they have then less value than an AutoPen signature (or the same)? Or would you say that they do have at least some historical value - as there was an official connection with the personality and the person who they put in change of signing fanmail? </p>
<p>Of course the value can never reach the same amount as the original handwritten signature but the question is whether you would consider the secretarial signatures absolutely worthless.</p>
<p>I have seen some discussions on this topic in certain collectors´circles and I know that mostly the secretarial signatures are considered as something like an "approved" forgery (as they were approved by the important persona) but as they are not signed directly by the celeb, for most collectors they are of no interest. But.. should they be of less interest than AutoPens?</p>
<p>Thank you in advance for your comments on this topic. </p>
<p>Gabriela</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
The Jackie Gleason Autograph Thread! Genuine examples from every period! Cavalcade of Secretarials! Saddleman, Spear and Marilyn Gleason!
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2015-11-25:3524372:Topic:840467
2015-11-25T04:34:40.399Z
Eric Keith Longo
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/Eric947
<p><strong>***************************************************************</strong></p>
<p><strong>The October 27th, 2018 update is what should be seen here first so until the rewrite it is below:</strong></p>
<p><strong>PRESENTING! THE CULMINATION OF THIS PROJECT! FIRST TIME EVER?!</strong></p>
<p>Jackie Gleason's secretarial signature sources (and 1 wife) <em><strong>BY NAME</strong></em> (where possible). The vast bulk of the secretarials out there will be by Spear from the later 1970's on…</p>
<p><strong>***************************************************************</strong></p>
<p><strong>The October 27th, 2018 update is what should be seen here first so until the rewrite it is below:</strong></p>
<p><strong>PRESENTING! THE CULMINATION OF THIS PROJECT! FIRST TIME EVER?!</strong></p>
<p>Jackie Gleason's secretarial signature sources (and 1 wife) <em><strong>BY NAME</strong></em> (where possible). The vast bulk of the secretarials out there will be by Spear from the later 1970's on to 1987 on <em>anything</em> in felt tip, usually black, and then Saddleman on the 1950's postcards in blue fountain ink most often. Forgeries are of course more common than anything. After those and the secretarials shown by name below, the signing secretarials are encountered (<em>infrequently</em>, fountain and often ballpoint, <em>on portraits mostly</em>), then Marilyn Gleason (ballpoint and perhaps 1 fountain pen so far C. 1970's,), and last...finally, <em><strong>The Great One</strong></em> (pencil, fountain (black and blue with some oddities in the late 1960's), ballpoint (usually blue), felt tip (black and blue) etc.).</p>
<p><em><strong>"...And away we go!..."</strong></em></p>
<p>Click for <strong>large image</strong> please.This image has been updated October 29, 2018 to show the largest examples clearly.</p>
<p>Photo reposted Oct. 30th, 2018. PM 10.29.18 Improved with better, larger scans, more accurate date windows and expanded to show <em>a later Saddleman</em> as well (!):</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1214389880?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1214389880?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" class="align-left"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><strong>******************************************************************</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>And the "old" article, undergoing full revision follows...</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1214390875?profile=original" target="_self"><br/> <img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1214390875?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" class="align-left"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>I thought this composite might be useful in identifying the rampant secretarials of Jackie Gleason's signature that are offered, both raw and certified. The topic has risen before, but I did not see this all laid out simply and clearly labeled. Gleason's authentic signature is <i>very</i> rare in any form. <em>Almost</em> <em>everything</em> out there is a secretarial or poor forgery, especially the 1970's signatures, <em>although this is changing now (10/28/18) as the forgers attempt to create 1950's signatures</em>. The comments below concern the scans above as shown.</p>
<p>The authentic example from 1951 shown is typical of this period, not terribly neat, sometimes <em>slightly</em> flowery if messy, and with a rather bouncy base line (especially early examples) in "jackie", which often appears as "jockie". Note the overall shape and slight lean of the "a" in Jockie" compared to the secretarials (much more round). Note the attack of the "jackie", the connection of the "j" to the "a", and the clear construction and articulation of the "k" (hooking back and under). Sometimes the "e" in "jackie" is a touch higher than the "i" and leans back a bit to the left. Also note the differences in the formation of the "g" in "gleason" with the 1950's secretarial (and the form of the "ason"). The "a" in "gleason" is often complex and dense as it goes back on itself. Ink dispersal shows a rather quick hand compared to all the secretarials, with most ink in the last "a". Authentic examples are <em>very</em> hard to find and rather expensive if identified. Very early examples show him singing both names in a single line, even almost connecting first and last names, but then he started signing on two lines by C. 1949. Gleason's signature remained more or less the same, sometimes taking on a more extreme slant, until the early 1960's, after which it became a bit more scrawled and often more simplified. Most authentic examples appear to come from the 1950's and are often found on album pages; examples from the 1960's can be found on playbills and theater programs as well as other items. From what little I have seen, most all later examples (mid 1970's and on) exhibit more variation and extreme simplification in the last years and are seldom encountered. They should be priced accordingly.</p>
<p>The 1950's secretarials are easily spotted by an overall <em>drawn</em> quality, <em>extreme</em> neatness, straight baseline, even ink dispersal/pressure, and the very similar "j" and "g" bottom loops. Do not ignore this. The formation of the letters in first and last names is <em>very</em> different - the first "a" is often quite <em>round,</em> and the "ason" in "gleason" is quite different from the authentic (see the elongated space between the "a" and "s" in the secretarial) and is <em>always legible</em> (<span style="text-decoration: underline;">true of most all secretarials</span>), with no ending trail off that <em>melds</em> the final letters. This is important. Early examples can show an elongated thinner "j" <strong>(now added in a composite scan posted below)</strong>, but are readily betrayed by the rest of the signature which displays hesitance and the drawn quality and form. These 3.5" x 5" secretarials exist in quantity, <em>yet I believe are still quite collectible as period item</em>s - if you wrote to the Jackie Gleason Show during the 1950's <em>this is indeed</em> what you would have received. <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Very</span></em> few if any of these bear authentic signatures. They were usually signed by secretary Patricia Saddleman, who admitted to signing all of his mail at the time on a broadcast (1956) of What's My Line.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>The 1960's secretarials are even more obvious with very even ink dispersal, a <em>very</em> different overall slant compared to either the authentic or earlier secretarials, a straight base line, a different formation overall and of the last name in particular. The "j" in "jackie" is not connected to the "a" as the authentic. The capitalized "E" in "glEason" first appears about C. 1959 on the earlier C. 1954 PC's images, many times from the same source but I digress. They bear ballpoint signatures that appear much like the 1960's version(s). Several examples exist with the capital "E" ALL c. 1959/60, so that one can distinguish the forged from the secretarial apart from the other problems. Note the <em>opposing</em> <em>slants</em> of the "j" and "k" in "jackie" compared with the authentic example - same holds true for the 1970's and 1980's. These 3.5" x 5" secretarials with the "E" do not show up as frequently as the earlier 1950's 3.5" x 5" secretarials which are comparatively common. There is another scarcer 3.5" x 5" early 1960's (Perhaps 1963) version showing Gleason on stage in front of curtains with a raised arm - I have seen this version bear the shown 1960's secretarial signatures (not all with "E") and, <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">very</span> rarely</em>, a <em>genuine</em> signature. If my memory serves, I have seen a <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">very</span></em> few stamped versions of just the standing pose from Miami.</p>
<p>The 1970's secretarials, as those of the 1980's, are also <em>very</em> neat and exhibit very consistent ink dispersal even if more fluidly executed. These later secretarials are usually accompanied with the inscription "My Best Wishes" and a "dash" "-"; and display a slant to the right, posses a readily identifiable "j", and the "k" is formed <em>very</em> much like the "i" and "e" - with all reaching the same height. There is usually a space before and/or after the "a" in "jackie" (lone "a"),and often a space before the "a" in "gleason". The last name appears to be broken into two or three segments. There can be some variation of the "g" (thinner bottom loop, angular tipped) but the rest of the signature will quickly confirm the secretarial (the "j", which sometimes has a loop at the top and a slightly varying flourish, and then the "g"). These secretarials are <em>extremely</em> common, generally accepted as genuine, and are usually seen on 8" x 10" cast signed bus photographs (with the rest often authentic), fan letters, personal portraits and, later, 5" x 7" portraits. The signature is almost always in black felt tip without regard to what the item is; this allows ready examination of the ink and pressure changes which will reveal the secretarial. <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>The presence of a "dash" is problematic - limited to secretarials only - I have <em>yet</em> to see a genuine example with a "dash". As of 11/23 this holds true.</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p>Below is another authentic vintage signature - a <em>superb</em> example in pencil that dates to shortly after the 1951 example above. It is a wonderful example of the true signature of <strong>The Great One.</strong></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/110147739?profile=original"><img class="align-left" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/110147739?profile=original" width="298"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Additional authentic signatures from 1944 to 1961 can be see here (the 1948 example is very useful, but they all are of great value in this discussion), as well as a confirmed common secretarial from the 1970's:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thecead.com/gnamesfolder/gleasonjackie.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jackie Gleason Confirmed Authentic Exemplars at The Classic Entertainment Autograph Database</a></p>
<p>Note: If you have an authentic Gleason signature or another type of secretarial from any period and would like to share it for the purposes of this article please contact me. Member Bob Shinn also has a superb example, but I wont post images w/o permission.</p>
<p>Eric</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>A large scan of the 1951 has been added as an attachment below</strong>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Closing notes</span></strong>: It is sometimes said that Gleason's wife signed for him. <strong>She did!</strong> Marilyn Gleason, starting early, in about 1965. Gleason was married 1936-1970, 1970-1975, and 1975-1987. From what I have seen the "My Best Wishes" secretarials, which represent the overwhelming majority of signatures, start to appear on photographs from about 1975 on. The presence of this inscription does not equate with being a secretarial, but this is often the case. I also note the lack of any transitional examples of the secretarials. The little I have seen appears forged or unusual in some odd way. His authentic signature mutated slightly over the years while retaining basic elements, yet the secretarials just change violently. I have never seen the 1960's style secretarial signature shown in the composite above, whose appearance seems to correlate with his move to Miami in 1962, on anything <em>but</em> these small photographs from this period.</p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><strong><font color="#3366FF">This article is under construction. Updated</font> <span style="text-decoration: underline;">October 26, 2018</span><font color="#3366FF"> with much additional information and a new scan showing the most encountered secretarial signatures with the names of those who signed them along with Marilyn Gleason. © EKL 2018</font><br/></strong></span></p>
<p></p>
PLEASE BEWARE, very questionable autograph of Elvis Presley on eBay
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2014-06-16:3524372:Topic:600076
2014-06-16T17:39:32.572Z
Timothy
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/timothy001
<p>Hi everyone! <br></br><br></br>Fans of Elvis, PLEASE BEWARE!<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Elvis-Presley-signature-autograph-1-1-Topps-Heritage-memorabilia-card-/191212899968?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c852d4e80"><br></br><br></br>http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Elvis-Presley-signature-autograph-1-1-Topps-Heritage-memorabilia-card-/191212899968?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c852d4e80</a></p>
<p>photo: …</p>
<p>Hi everyone! <br/><br/>Fans of Elvis, PLEASE BEWARE!<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Elvis-Presley-signature-autograph-1-1-Topps-Heritage-memorabilia-card-/191212899968?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c852d4e80"><br/><br/>http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Elvis-Presley-signature-autograph-1-1-Topps-Heritage-memorabilia-card-/191212899968?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c852d4e80</a></p>
<p>photo: <a href="http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTkxWDEzODc=/z/iygAAOSwcnpTmm7u/$_57.JPG">http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTkxWDEzODc=/z/iygAAOSwcnpTmm7u/$_57.JPG</a></p>
<p>Price: USD 2500 (!!!)</p>
<p>Most likely on 99.9% that this is fake. I think here do not even need to be an expert to understand that it's a fake. Very bad...</p>
<p>I hope it help to someone!</p>
<p>Good luck and take care!</p>
<p>Regards,<br/>Tim</p>
JFK - Secretarial?
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2014-01-17:3524372:Topic:497367
2014-01-17T08:47:55.238Z
Nate
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/NathanWhite
<p>Hi to all.</p>
<p>Very new to posting so forgive me if anything is a bit 'off'. I have a John F Kennedy 'signed' book, I believe it is almost certainly a secretarial signature, but was wondering if you guys could take a look and let me know your opinions? Also what kinda money does something like this one go for (a 'signed' book)? Many thanks for spending your time on this:…</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/110018229?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
<p>Hi to all.</p>
<p>Very new to posting so forgive me if anything is a bit 'off'. I have a John F Kennedy 'signed' book, I believe it is almost certainly a secretarial signature, but was wondering if you guys could take a look and let me know your opinions? Also what kinda money does something like this one go for (a 'signed' book)? Many thanks for spending your time on this:</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/110018229?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/110018233?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
Profiles in History Auction July 2013 Marilyn Monroe Handwriting wrongly labelled
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2013-07-28:3524372:Topic:422436
2013-07-28T13:26:41.288Z
Pauline Berry
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/PaulineBerry
<p>It has come to my attention that "Profiles in History" are being somewhat misleading and really they have no excuse. They are clearly labelling a secretarial as a real hand-written note from Marilyn Monroe. Yet they have an actual hand-written note for sale also.</p>
<p>Why are they not comparing their own real examples of Marilyn Monroe to other items they have for sale? which are clearly secretarial:…</p>
<p></p>
<p>It has come to my attention that "Profiles in History" are being somewhat misleading and really they have no excuse. They are clearly labelling a secretarial as a real hand-written note from Marilyn Monroe. Yet they have an actual hand-written note for sale also.</p>
<p>Why are they not comparing their own real examples of Marilyn Monroe to other items they have for sale? which are clearly secretarial:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/marilyn-monroe-handwritten-letter-signed...-63-c-908dd2f9d8" target="_blank">Marilyn Monroe Hand Written letter</a> (secretarial)</p>
<p>The above link is a practice run for the note of which there is an image of at the end of this posting, a secretarial, the exact same wording to a different person. Marilyn's secretary probably had to write many such letters.</p>
<p>"Profiles in History" are purposely saying that it is written in Monroe's hand and that she was "practicing her new name" - what rubbish. As if she needed to practice "Marilyn Monroe", only the Miller was new - and its not her hand-writing anyway. Marilyn had a miscarriage and some surgery, either one of these occasions were publicly known and a lot of people would have written concerned fan mail. The secretary had many notes to write.</p>
<p>Right next to the secretarial on auction is an actual real hand-written letter to her sister's daughter - do they really not know the difference? Yes, they do, it shows in the big price difference - $1000 on the secretarial and $4000 on the real letter to Mona Rae.</p>
<p>I have let them know. I wonder if they will change the wording on the secretarial notes of which there are two auctions worth - 4 pages in all, incorrectly assigned to be Marilyn's own hand . . . they even made up this little illogical story. There is one bidder on one of the secretarials too. More watchers on the real items.</p>
<p>There is one bargain on there - the signed card "Marilyn and Daddy" currently just $1000, that really is her hand-writing. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/marilyn-monroe-handwritten-signed-note-t...-68-c-f27b813bbf" target="_blank">Actual Monroe hand-written letter to Mona Rae</a> - link</p>
<p>and below is the final version of the secretarial - not for sale on this auction, but clearly the same hand. </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109989397?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109989397?profile=original" width="258" class="align-full"/></a></p>
TO BURN OR NOT TO BURN...That is the question.
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2012-12-20:3524372:Topic:330327
2012-12-20T16:03:24.536Z
Scott Paul
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/ScottPaul
<p>Like most autograph collectors I have encountered my share of forged autographs, and have written it off to a lesson learned. I have also destroyed those forgeries so future generations will not be fooled. The question I have concerns known secretarial autographs (the famed "Challton" Heston, etc.). I have mixed very feelings on this subject. On the one hand I do not want people fooled, but the photograph (or item) is also a historical artifact of its time. It is like a Charles…</p>
<p>Like most autograph collectors I have encountered my share of forged autographs, and have written it off to a lesson learned. I have also destroyed those forgeries so future generations will not be fooled. The question I have concerns known secretarial autographs (the famed "Challton" Heston, etc.). I have mixed very feelings on this subject. On the one hand I do not want people fooled, but the photograph (or item) is also a historical artifact of its time. It is like a Charles Lindburgh photograph with a printed autograph sent out by the thousands during his lifetime. Even those have some value today as an example of what was sent to fans. What I have done with certain known secretarial autographs is to write on the back that the signature is a secretarial. Now of course someone could mat and frame it, or Mr. Chop Me Up Documents could cut the signature and put on a card or in a case. That is the danger of that although I try to write directly behind the autograph itself to help stop any scissor happy people in the future. The "Challton" Heston photographs while obviously not signed by him were nonetheless artifacts from his lifetime. So I would be curious what others might think on the subject. </p>
Tony Curtis Autographs and His (Not So) Tricky Secretarial
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2011-09-04:3524372:Topic:157502
2011-09-04T19:21:45.386Z
Brick Hunter
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/BrickHunter
<p>This month will mark one year since Tony Curtis, the beloved actor, passed away. I decided to post this quick thread after searching through past ones and seeing very little discussed about Tony Curtis' signature. There are a lot of through the mail Tony Curtis signatures on eBay with certificates from both PSA/DNA and JSA. I think it's pretty well known that Tony Curtis' through the mail was secretarial but I'd like to post this for anyone who doesn't know or may be fooled by the PSA or JSA…</p>
<p>This month will mark one year since Tony Curtis, the beloved actor, passed away. I decided to post this quick thread after searching through past ones and seeing very little discussed about Tony Curtis' signature. There are a lot of through the mail Tony Curtis signatures on eBay with certificates from both PSA/DNA and JSA. I think it's pretty well known that Tony Curtis' through the mail was secretarial but I'd like to post this for anyone who doesn't know or may be fooled by the PSA or JSA seal of approval.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Tony Curtis Secretarial:</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905688?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905688?profile=original" width="529"/></a></p>
<p>The differences between authentic Tony signatures and this secretarial are very distinctive. </p>
<p><strong>Here's a quick rundown of some differences:</strong></p>
<p>1. Tony Curtis didn't stack his signature. See how the Tony is on top of the Curtis in the secretarial above. That isn't present in authentic examples.</p>
<p>2. Tony Curtis would almost always attach the "y" in Tony to the "C" in Curtis.</p>
<p>3. The "C" in Tony Curtis will almost always have a little loop or attachment at the top. It's most often part of the attachment between the "y" and "C" but it is also present in signatures where there is no attachment.</p>
<p><em>*4. Tony Curtis' authentic signature was much more varied than this secretarial and more sloppy on average.*</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Here are some Tony Curtis signatures we know with absolutely certainty to be real. You can compare them with the secretarial and also the characteristics outlined above:</strong><em> </em></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905728?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905728?profile=original" width="554"/></a><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905649?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905649?profile=original" width="614"/></a><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905771?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905771?profile=original" width="618"/></a><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905699?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905699?profile=original" width="630"/></a></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Now here is some side by side comparison of the secretarial signature versus the authentic Tony Curtis signature. The secretarial version is on the left and the authentic signature is on the right:</strong><em> </em></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905804?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905804?profile=original" width="701"/></a><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905743?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905743?profile=original" width="611"/></a><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905774?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/109905774?profile=original" width="670"/></a></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Tony Curtis was a very willing signer in-person. He signed right up until the end. He just didn't sign through the mail. Where would he find the time with five wives?<em><br/></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><em><br/></em></p>
Autograph's Johnny Cash Signature Study — Be Part of It!
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2011-08-05:3524372:Topic:135093
2011-08-05T22:44:10.967Z
Steve Cyrkin, Admin
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/SteveCyrkin
<p>Has there ever been a nicer, more humble, more fan friendly superstar than Johnny Cash?</p>
<p>Johnny was the Babe Ruth of Country Music—the top-ranking Country artist of all time and the most loved. And Johnny loved his fans as much as they love him. So while like the Babe, Cash signed untold numbers of autographs, the supply could never meet demand...and probably never will.</p>
<p>Fans who couldn't meet Cash in person often requested autographs through the mail. The common belief is that…</p>
<p>Has there ever been a nicer, more humble, more fan friendly superstar than Johnny Cash?</p>
<p>Johnny was the Babe Ruth of Country Music—the top-ranking Country artist of all time and the most loved. And Johnny loved his fans as much as they love him. So while like the Babe, Cash signed untold numbers of autographs, the supply could never meet demand...and probably never will.</p>
<p>Fans who couldn't meet Cash in person often requested autographs through the mail. The common belief is that he personally autographed those requests. But between his demanding touring schedule and later, his failing health and vision, it seems impossible that he could have signed even half of the mail he received.</p>
<p>A growing number of collectors and dealers now believe that many if not most Johnny Cash through the mail autographs were secretarial. We want to see if we can identify any secretarial styles, and at the same time build a reference collection of no-question genuine Cash exemplars to help identifying forgeries.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Are There Johnny Cash Secretarials?<br/>If So, How Do We Identify Them?<br/></strong><strong>Help Find Out!</strong></p>
<p>You can be an important part of the study in three ways:</p>
<ol>
<li>Upload into this discussion images of Johnny Cash autographs that you personally received through the mail, and tell us when you received them. (The year is fine, but if you know the date, even better.)</li>
<li>Upload images of Johnny's autographs that YOU saw signed by Johnny yourself. Include the date or at least year, too. If you didn't see it signed yourself (like pre-signed ones sold or given away at shows), please don't upload it.</li>
<li>As more and more images are uploaded, see if you can identify characteristics that are commonly found on Johnny's through the mail autographs that are rarely if ever seen on ones signed in person.</li>
</ol>
<p>With your help, we can identify Cash secretarials if they're out there. Over time this should increase the value of genuine Johnny Cash autographs, and help protect future fans and collectors against autographs that aren't authentic. </p>
<p>Once we finish this phase of the study, we'll go on to identifying genuine Johnny Cash autographs from forgeries.</p>
<p>Let's go!</p>
Charlton Heston Secretarial Signature Study
tag:live.autographmagazine.com,2011-03-06:3524372:Topic:63940
2011-03-06T19:46:41.338Z
Steve Zarelli
https://live.autographmagazine.com/profile/MrZipper
<p><strong> </strong>Hi:</p>
<p>At Steve Cyrkin's invitation, I'd like to call your attention to a signature study I've posted on my blog, <a href="http://stevezarelli.blogspot.com/2011/03/your-charlton-heston-autograph-its.html">Charlton Heston signature study by Steve Zarelli</a>.</p>
<p>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…</p>
<p><strong> </strong>Hi:</p>
<p>At Steve Cyrkin's invitation, I'd like to call your attention to a signature study I've posted on my blog, <a href="http://stevezarelli.blogspot.com/2011/03/your-charlton-heston-autograph-its.html">Charlton Heston signature study by Steve Zarelli</a>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is a synopsis:</p>
<p><strong>The Theory</strong><br/>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. <strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Real vs. Secretary</strong><br/>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."</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>I have attached two images to give you a small sampling. <strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>For more details and images, please visit my blog at the link below.</strong></p>
<p>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 <span style="text-decoration: underline;">wasn't</span> sitting on a bunch of secretary signed photos!</p>
<p>By way of introduction, I have been collecting since the early 90s and I am the UACC Ethics Director.</p>
<p>I look forward to the discussion.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://stevezarelli.blogspot.com">The Collecting Obsession</a></strong></p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Steve Zarelli</p>
<p> </p>