Authenticity is Everything
Billie Holiday Autograph
I purchased this 78 vinyl record purportedly signed by Billie Holiday from an RACC trusted seller. I recently submitted the item to JSA for authentication, and unfortunately it did not pass.
I originally submitted it in person at a show here in CA a few weeks ago, and I was disappointed by how carelessly the item was handled during intake. When I received it back, there were fingerprints all over it. I contacted JSA immediately to report the condition, and they did expedite the review process.
Yesterday I received their letter confirming that the autograph did not pass authentication. I’m extremely disappointed and unsure what my next step should be, or if anyone here might be able to offer advice.
Prior to purchasing the item, I did my research and examined the signature characteristics—such as the looping of “Billie” and the shape of the “H” in “Holiday.” However, upon further inspection, the signature appears to have been written in ballpoint pen. Additionally, the Blue Ace label is known to be a bootleg label, and this particular pressing seems to have been released slightly before the time of her passing.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by a pug called eva
-
$6,875 including fees sounds like an absolute bargain assuming everything can be safely removed from that oppressively-dark frame. I was expecting something over $20,000 (like the letter RR sold in 2024), which would have been more in line with the 1999 result. I often think that letters in general are rather undervalued, even when they have such great content. I suppose they don't "present as well" as signed photographs or even signed album pages.
-
-
The posts about the poignant letter sold at Heritage prompted me to have a look at the other Billie autographs that Heritage have sold. I had only looked at the RR examples before. The Heritage examples seem particularly good at illustrating why I think Ryan's signed 78 is a fake. I've only looked at the surname. There are four features that can be seen in virtually all the Heritage exemplars and, in fact, virtually all the others I've seen, including the one I own that is shown earlier in this discussion:
1. The lack of a loop from the "H" to the "o". Normally the link looks like a "v" and if there is a loop it is a very fine one (e.g. in the "Lady Sings The Blues" example shown earlier in this discussion).
2. The presence of a backward loop from the "o" to the "l". Sometimes the loop is not so clear but the backward movement of the pen always is.
3. The lack of a loop on the "I", the base of the "d" and the "a". I don't think I've seen any example with a loop on the "I". In rare cases the base of the "d" and the "a" do have loops but these are few and far between and normally very fine.
4. The lack of a pen lift on the tail of the "y". I don't think I've seen any examples at all with a pen lift.
I've attached a fairly loose example from Heritage to illustrate these features. In my opinion Ryan's 78 differs in all cases. I would hasten to add that I didn't just look at the illustrated example.
I know that nobody signs in exactly the same way throughout their life or even on the same day but. even though Billie's autograph can appear to vary a lot there are some movements of the pen that remain consistent. I don't think the unusual surface of a 78 could explain all the above-mentioned differences away.
There are other things about the surname on Ryan's 78 that don't look right, like the even height and lack of a slant to the right of the letters, as well as the very strangely-formed loop on the tail of the "y" but these are things that more difficult to make a "scientific" comparison of.
Given all the above, I am very surprised that Roger didn't agree with JSA's negative opinion. My hunch is that someone bought a copy of the 78 (they can be found on eBay for little money) and used the "Lady Sings The Blues" example mentioned above as the basis for their forgery. Obviously this really is just speculation.
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Wolfson
-
The signature appears to be from the 1950s (likely mid-to-late in the decade, up to around 1959), done with a blue ballpoint pen.
The signature visually appears to be 60–75 years old (roughly mid-to-late 1950s, up to around 1959). This is based on its ink characteristics, the record label context, and comparisons to authenticated Billie Holiday autographs from that era.
If it were a modern fake, you’d more likely see fiber-tip, gel, or rollerball traits (sharper edges, different sheen, or bleeding).
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo
-
It would have to be - the 78 was pressed no earlier then May 1950. It could not be in any of the pens you mentioned as they were all introduced after her death in 1959. It would take a very foolish forger to use a gel pen.
-
-
Ballpoint was around years before 1950
-
-
I know, I pointed that out pages back. Gleason was an early user. You said rollerball, which was introduced in 1963 or so.
-
-
It doesn’t have rollerball traits
-
-
I did not say it did. I was just pointing out the pens you mentioned were not available during Holiday's lifetime. Even the Sharpie was in use before gel pens - gel would be a dead giveaway.
-
-
I understand your point—I was just noting that’s why it wouldn’t be considered a modern forgery.
-
-
Almost all forged Gleason's I have encountered were pencil, fountain or ballpoint. Experienced forgers use period correct pens materials. That is to be expected.
-
-
This wasn’t forged
-
-
-
It was you who first questioned this item in your initial response - "Does this appear to be authentic? "
Sign up for our Newsletter!
Photos
© 2026 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
