I'm not sure I like the MT. It's a lot smoother than mine.
Maybe in 1976 she was fitter than later.
The FDC is from 1976, but that is not necessarily when she signed it. But, you are of course correct in that she might have had a cleaner signature when she was younger.
I have examples from c. 1980 until she stopped signing TTM, so that is what my first impression is based on.
The question that springs to my mind is why would she sign such an item?
Let's say you are sending something by mail to India in the hope that you will receive a non-secretarial autograph in reply. Is this the most appropriate item that you can think of as a vessel for her signature?
Or, did the autograph-hunter in question bump into her in a shopping mall in Calcutta and just happen to have this FDC in his/her pocket? Is MT's signature known to have been commissioned for this FDC - are there other examples known?
Yes. But otherwise: Wouldn't a forger use a more attractive item that makes more money? This being said, isn't a FDC a sort of hint for authenticity?
Not sure if this argumentation is leading us anywhere. What about the sig itself?
That kind of rationalization can be dangerous... For example, FDCs are cheap so mistakes aren't expensive to make.
In any case, as you suggested, the signature should be the focus. (I've already given my initial impression).
By the way: seller states it was a TTM success.
Thanks for sharing, JK!
What I see is the loops in the M and the s. Also the lifting pen after "Ter" and "es" and the "m" and "e". Size and alignment seem to fit, too.
All this makes me confident. But maybe this is wishful thinking.
What do others think?
Your "s" and "a" look a little flamboyant to me, and the MC looks off to me.
But that's just my opinion.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Same with the T.
Someone else? Or anything about Freleng?