Early Marilyn Monroe autographed publicity photo possibly signed in the early 50s. Is it authentic?

Hello i'm a new member here and recently purchased 2 Marilyn Monore autographs. This one was an early publicity shot which was nicely signed in blue pen. Can anyone help and see if this is real? I've looked at many samples of her signature and this looks good but i'm not an expert. Thanks for any help you can offer.

Tags: Marilyn, Monroe

Views: 112

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Frank, I feel the same way about this one as I do about the other Marilyn you posted. It's not genuine in my opinion, and notice how similar the style is to the other one you posted.

BTW, it was unusual for Marilyn not to inscribe a photo she signed.

Did you pay by PayPal or bank card? PayPal's best. Nice Marilyn-signed 8x10s like this typically sell in the $8,000-$10,000+ range, inscribed, so I hope you have adequate buyer protection.

I purchased it via a highly trusted dealer and friend so i'm not worried about a refund but I would love if this was genuine. It looks so good. Almost too good to be true right?

This is most definitely not authentic. It is hand signed by someone copying her signature. 

I would urge you to get your money back asap.  The pen is bright blue, looks fresh as. Also, the signature it is copying is the 20th Century Fox classic which is one of her rarest styles but most often copied.

Thank you Ms.Berry. I will immediately contact the dealer and start the refund process. I totally agree with your assessment. It was too good to be true.

Gosh did you really buy these without running them by anyone? whew, pretty scary considering the amount of fraud there is with her sig :-/

I know but the dealer and I have been doing business for over 10 years and we have an excellent relationship. That's the reason why I didn't hesitate but even the most experienced can be fooled. I just saw how amazing the signatures look and felt it would be a perfect buy. I just wished they were real as they were both authenticated by a forensic expert and the dealer himself who is an expert authenticator. Thanks again for your assessment Ms.Berry.

Well it's just my opinion. But for what's it worth, the worst of the three is this bright blue one above, worst signing, plus the fresh biro. 

I agree. It is too perfect. Too fresh. Too new looking. It's too good to be true. Since you are the leading expert next to Beckett/PSA/DNA I trust your opinion very much. Many thanks again.

Well I don't know if I am the leading expert! but I do feel I know her hand-writing, and printing really well and I trust that instinct. A few signings have me puzzled. I have a big background knowledge of her life, photos as well, which helps. This photo is 1947 or 48? and her hand-writing was quite different then, in fact, a form of printing. I bet this photo looks freshly printed in person? It should be looking 60+ years old and yellowing around the edges. 

You're right. It just looks too perfect and new to be true even if it is a genuine publicity photo. But the dealer told me that the collector who sold it to him kept it in her collection for years untouched. Plus after reading an article on the evolution to her autograph it all makes sense. And yes the photo does look relatively new in person. And I appreciate your expertise and experience in your assessment. I should have consulted you before making the purchase.



  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2020   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service