PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS, NOT BLOGS.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST, THANKS.

Thanks

Views: 338

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

the card should make you think it could be the real deal but the autograph is signed wild and sloppy and that's not the way donald trump would sign. 

I know nothing about Trump autographs, but someone on RACC has posted the following as an exemplar which compares quite well with the business card in question.

And I have found this slabbed one from heritage. 
Not sure what to make of this...

Attachments: No photo uploads here

I highly doubt that Trump signed that first link (not photo) that you posted.   The second one is debatable but I believe it is secretarial.  

the cards are the same but the autographs are way different.

I believe the card in the initial post **may** be legit. Sloppy, but has a number of positive traits. 

I agree with Terrier's observations on the links posted. The first is almost certainly secretary. The second is likely secretary IMO.

the second comes with a full letter from beckett? 

to address your comment about the full letter from Beckett.  It is just an opinion.  It happens to be one that I question.

Steve, my initial thought was the same as yours. The one in the OP could be just a rushed authentic version, as I also see some positives.  But I do not recall ever seeing one like it, thus my hesitation on it.

Thanks, terrier

Thanks, Steve

Late to the party, but chiming in with my 2 cents. Even on the more hastily signed signatures, there's a consistent up and down logic to it. Even though it's basically spikes, a seismograph signature, mostly comprised of up and down arrows  ^ and v in a continuous "wave", you can sense the "onal" and 'rum" as taking up a certain amount of space and a certain amount of spikes to form those letters. This one lacks that logic completely. I just can't get a good sense of his name as is typically conveyed by the spikes on this top OP business card example. Like on Jimmie Foxx forgeries when they don't get the multiple sine waves of the 'm's right, too many or too few. IMO, the image that starts the thread is a forgery. 

 I Agree with Steve, Woody and Terrier. There are some Characteristic in this Sig, but there are also things in there that aren't right. He signed differently in the 80's, 90's and early 2000, than he does today. Still, my Opinion would be to Stay Away and find one that isn't rushed and looks more Acceptable. 

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2021   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service