Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 9, 2022 at 11:28am

Authentic but some things are just off. Stops, starts, a pen lift or two, certain angles/slants and a lot of ink for her - slower signature, sitting. She often had a light hand. The overall baseline is curved - low in the middle and both ends rise a bit. It is normally straight I don't know what happed the the end of the loop on the "y" - that odd hook back in. Never saw a "J" like that with both top and bottom loops heading up. The underline flourish or paraph is not out of range for her. C. 1940-41 The works "sincerely" is slow and a bit haphazard with that odd "y" ending and "c" pen lift. It is not her norm for these years. I looked at earlier and period examples of this word and it is smooth and clean apart from some messy quick sigs from 40-41.. The "e's" in "Sincerely" areslightly odd as is the "r"  in "Garland". Not quite articulated. Spatial relations and relative size also indicate an authentic graph to me. It is fluid in Judy's way if stunted and odd.

This is, in my opinion, an atypical authentic signature from 1940-41. Right when she was a bit erratic and changing styles from first to second. No secretarials I have seen come so close to the proper execution of the "udy" and "Garland". None have the capital "G" from what I have seen and get anywhere near this close. 

I am attaching an authentic 1938 and 1941 with the same loopy style - IP album pages. Also two SP.'s It is true the SP in question is very pretty but also somewhat atypical after seeing these and yours above. However, I wanted you to see that she was capable of this curvilinear style. These are the best scans I have for this purpose. The second scan shows a nearly circular execution on the "J". 

The photo has high quality and condition, a great image, it's early, good contrast and placement. The contrast could be a touch better (minor) - but the signature doesn't quite look as comfortable as what I have attached. It likely will still fetch a great price. But with this name in this period you want to be sure to hit every cylinder to reach a true A to A+ level piece which will sell itself if need be in future. This is why I sent that long article about qualities, Many would never read it but many did. It is important stuff. Here we have an odd "J" in the first name with a "y" that does end quite oddly. The last name has the the first "a" crammed right up against the "G" and the second "a" and the "r" are caught up in the messy "y" ending of "Judy" which is a shame as it throws the already oddly curved baseline off. Curved I believe because she started to sign a little too low and was runnning out of room for the last name. And the word "sincerely" is rather messy with a pen lift at the "c" and in the "d". But the upswinging  end of the "d" has precedence - see the third scan.

This is a transitional period from first to second form so some instability is expected. I'm still looking at others and this is growing on me. It is pretty and very well preserved oxidated ink - the signature has no condition flaws of any kind. We did not speak of that. It's very important - no wear to the ink. I expect it might fetch a great price being so clean. Everything in the signature is explainable or has a precedent apart from that "y" in "Judy" doing that odd upward move at its last in "Garland". The "a" is so close to the "G" because she was trying to avoid signing in the white margin. Note the pen lift in the "d" is right at the margin - I think she stopped and considered her options. This sudden and decreasing lack of space also created the curved baseline. The condition is very strong, the pose is very good and the signature is equally perfectly preserved. The oxidation shows the age of the ink but it looks fresh.

Click for larger images:

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 9, 2022 at 11:34am

Angus,

The first two images you posted show her keeping her signature out of the margin as she tried on the item in question where the pen lift is - supports the idea she was thinking out a solution. Trying to avoid the margin can explain the "J" and its odd turn up in the second loop.

Permalink Reply by Dan on May 9, 2022 at 12:06pm

Eric's knowledge of Judy Is superior to mine. However, 'Garland' looks fine and authentic. As he mentioned It curves upwards towards the end. I also completely agree this Is because she was running out of room to write.

Not too sure about 'sincerely', looks labored and slow with lots of Ink for her. Definitely a pen lift at the 'C' and the 'E's' look loopy compared to the examples I have. I do not think this Is secretarial, I have never seen anything remotely like It.

The decision lies with you and whether you are willing to accept an atypical and somewhat strange period example. despite this, I think It very well might be genuine.

I recommend you to wait for a more stable and typical example, what do you think Eric?

Other opinions?

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 9, 2022 at 12:15pm

That was my position too, but further assessment of the overall quality and the understanding this is between two styles leads me to believe this might well be what Angus is looking for. Early SP's in this incredible condition are so very infrequent. And it is not inscribed which is a plus to some people. I agree - no way this could be secretarial. They never came half as close.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 9, 2022 at 2:53pm

Bump for other opinions for Angus. He will cetainly appreciate it.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 9, 2022 at 6:00pm

This auction ends tomorrow - I'm sure Angus will appreciate any additional input. Etienne? Joe? David Lewis?

Permalink Reply by Dan on May 9, 2022 at 8:09pm

Hi Angus,

Yes, I somewhat agree with Eric. In all honesty, I actually was Interested In this SP myself back when It hit auction In April. This Is just my opinion, so interpret It as you wish. But, my main issue with It Is 'Sincerely'. I think Eric covers why 'Judy Garland Is written somewhat unfamiliarly, she was transitioning styles. Despite this, I found It concerning that she was so slow In writing sincerely. Multiple stops, lifts, etc, If you look at most If not all of RR auctions exemplars, she always flies through that word with ease and fluidity.

If this were later on In her career say mid/late 60s you could easily account for this for her deteriorating condition Booz/pills. But this signature was supposedly done In her prime from 1939-to 1940. The way I look at It, envision yourself winning the auction how would you feel? If you think you'd be over the moon go for It. But, If you feel that you might always have doubt In the back of your mind, I think you'll come to regret your decision. So It would be best then to wait for a more convincing autograph.

I often ask more experienced collectors such as Joe or Eric for opinions of my own, so take this with a grain of salt. But this Is just how I personally look at It.

Hopefully, some others comment on this post before the auction!

Permalink Reply by Angus Ramaciotti on May 9, 2022 at 8:50pm

Hello Eric, 

Thank you for your very detailed reply I will definitely take your points Into account when making my mind up.

If you were In my position would you grab the chance or wait for something more convincing. You seem like you are convinced they are authentic. Is there anything that still concerns you about the autograph?

Permalink Reply by Angus Ramaciotti on May 9, 2022 at 8:53pm

Hello Dan,

Thanks for your input. I really do like the SP In question, mostly because of Its quality. However, It's no lie I have my doubts.

My biggest worry Is that I'll pass on It, and something else 'vintage' might not come along for many years. 

Does anybody else have any opinions about the photo In question? Anyone's opinion would help me right now.

Thanks guys

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 9, 2022 at 9:56pm

Hi Angus,

I have no question this is the authentic signature of Judy Garland.

I'm sure Tricia looked at it as well as Beckett.

When I was collecting Garland eariy on I searched for a very long time to find something I knew was signed in 1954. This is the best I could do. It was $68 on eBay but that's another story. It is a candid b/y photo of Judy on a old small B/W television - set in by the collector Grace Cunningham to be signed by the "x" and returned. The photo was terribly blurry but it was authentic, Great signature but not impressive on this photo. Lesson learned. Quality right afer authenticity - almost neck and neck with condition. Click for image.

Since then I have had 50's and even late 60's autographs on programs and 2 photos. But I finally settled on the glossy postcard below (poor scan) from 1943's Presenting Lilly Mars and signed a bit later - Tricia says about 1953. This cost me $1200 and is nowhere near as rich with qualities and vintage appeal as the full 8x10 SP in question! I daresay anyone would choose the SP in question.

Click for full image:

To your question, I'd take it (it's a LOT better than your average "placeholder") and if one day something better comes along so be it. It may not. It may next month. How much better is reasonable to expect? Next photo might be gold like this image. Dan gave good advice - if you won it would you be pleased? You must believe it authentic before spending a sum on it. Is the signature pretty? It sure isn't ugly. And bolstered by the condition of photo and ink and the superb pose, and placement, contrast and so on it is an eyecatcher. Thank god there is no sticker! 

Permalink Reply by Eddy on May 10, 2022 at 8:43am

Hi Angus.

Dan sent me a message regarding this post and I appreciate the invite to weigh in.

Before I looked at the image of the Judy photo more closely, I was following the thread of comments...particularly yours.  It comes across that you have a real sense of hesitancy about the autograph.   In your reply to Dan, you say "I have my doubts".   I'm not in your place, but if I was looking at a possible bid on an autograph that may end up going for a couple thousand dollars and I had my doubts about it, I would pass.  Still, the only one that can make your mind is you. 

I'm not a Garland expert by any means but I also have reservations about it.  I would say set the fact that it's (undeniably) a terrific image aside.  Focus upon the slowly written and quite fresh looking ink as well as the atypical characteristics and you may have your answer.  

Permalink Reply by Dan on May 10, 2022 at 9:16am

I am not sure If you've owned a Garland yourself in the past Etienne? What do you personally find unusal about the photo. Maybe It might help Angus..

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page