I agree with people's comments and concerns here
No one has posted whether the first or second Bowie's are 100% authentic
Or confirmed 100% Fake
It's still speculation on everyone's part until the proof is in the pudding (so to speak haha).
Is there someone willing to lay down money that the 2 Bowie's are 100% Legit? "Close" and "similar" don't make it in my books.
Jennifer Connelly I dont even know who she is, so no comment on that one
The first OP Bowie I wouldn't buy even if it was Legit. But the second Bowie still has a chance IMO but I can't confirm 100% Legit on it.
Based on what I’ve posted, I believe the second piece to be authentic. I cannot give a determination for the first due to the fading of the Bowie, but the Connelly looks fine - therefore based on the sellers reputation and his stock, I don’t have reason this would be fake.
This is a calculated observation, unlike the first few comments posted on this thread. Just getting very tired of this reckless behavior in general. Experience does matter.
Again, I agree with your observations about the sigs and the comments.
But it's still a calculated risk until someone confirms authenticity.
I'm only going to speak to the OP Bowie because that's the one I commented on. Maybe I should have taken a lighter hand because I know there are folks far more experienced than I on Bowie. So I will apologize for that.
I've been seeing several "atypical" autographs lately that were determined Legit/Fake by one means or another. But to actually lay money down, speculations and calculated assessments just don't cut it IMO. I want the scale tilted one way or the other.
Your comments are noted Seamus
In the end, can anyone confirm any of these sigs 100% Legit?
the conelly looks fine? you are one piece of an expert huh? Lol. Maybe you should start collecting some glasses instead of autographs sir.
Calculated assessments over this amateur hour BS anytime.
I would pass on all. The first starts well, but is so abbreviated/atypical/faded as to be something I could never sell or recommend, the second (which they don't allow you to enlarge) has some rather bad contrast issues, the third and fourth (not shown) I do not believe to be genuine. Those appear a mix of 1980 and 1983 styles in some ways. The numerals are problematic (that "3" (or is that a 2""?). I like unusual items that is true, but I am not often thrilled with unusual signatures.
These do have some interesting qualities. My focus is on 1976-1980. It would be best to have MarkG's opinions here.
Thx for that honest assessment Eric
I too would like to hear from MarkG
You both are the best at Bowie's and I probably overstepped my boundaries here
Apologies to everyone for that
Yes, Mark would be great here. I am conservative but parts are very intriguing. I am a bit distracted - putting this together in Photoshop. I finally found an original November 1975 promo still that goes well with my April 1976 red fountain pen signature! A color still, even an original with him as The Thin White Duke, would detract from the signature. Hope you like it.
Here is a 1986 and a 1985 that are very interesting with regard to the previous discussion:
Great examples Eric, thank you, i had no idea Bowie's sig could vary so much from year to year.
How many Bowie's do you have Eric?
The still and album page shown above are mine and I had two others a SP and a signed CD triple gatefold, until recently. ;) In my files I have a LOT. I have owned many as well.
Eric do you have any examples of bowies signature that has sharp corners as the first example where R's line goes to bottom
If you look I said "...It starts well...". That would be a large "B", if you mean the "r" in F"Jennifer" no matter - same location. No, I do not. I note Bowie is noted for angularity but I have nothing to compare with that. IP of his can vary widely. As I said, I would not buy, sell or recommend this example.