Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on November 21, 2016 at 9:53am

I'd say yes.

Looks right for that period.

Highly unlikely that a secretary would be at the theatre to sign for her or that a forger would use a Playbill (a signed photo would be much more commercial).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on November 22, 2016 at 7:01pm

Thank you Eva. It's being offered to me and taylor has always been a tough one for me to evaluate

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on November 22, 2016 at 10:34pm

Thanks Eric, now I'm unsure on this one

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 22, 2016 at 11:53pm

Here are some exemplars from the period to look over along with some secretarials. Click for full images.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 23, 2016 at 3:08am

And some others:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on November 23, 2016 at 7:37am

Hello Eric, I took a look at the exemplars and found example HD index to be the closest match-especially the "best wishes". It doesn't look like a secretarial signature to me but it differs from the 81 exemplar? I'm leaning towards it could be authentic. Do you have a opinion?
Thanks for your help

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 23, 2016 at 9:01am

I agree, it appears like the HD example, but that source has secretarials of a few names and as noted that is an undedicated index card so I am hesitant there. It is odd to me that of all the exemplars shown, the questioned signature is the only one with that "E". If one accepts only the genuine cead exemplars, which appear to confirm themselves, the signature in question might be considered unusual, rather legible and smooth with an odd slant and baseline. I look at the baseline of the last name of the secretarial in blue right above and other things stick out. I'd say "secretarial" until I see more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 23, 2016 at 9:26am

"I look at the baseline of the last name of the secretarial in blue right above" - I meant in the last scan I posted. It seems odd that if she changed her signature to fit the space she was signing and also lifted her last name up the result would be something that resembles her secretarials. I have seen some playbills signed by someone not, oddly  enough, Richard Burton so it would not surprise me terribly.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on November 23, 2016 at 7:43am

I would say this is more than likely authentic. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on November 23, 2016 at 10:43am

For my money I have to stick with my original gut feeling that it is authentic. It seems much rounder and bolder than the HD example. I would say it is nearer the genuine 1983 signature from Eric's first block of examples.

I also have a 2001 example which isn't a million miles away either (from These Od Broads in the attached thread):

http://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/elizabeth-taylor-wou...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 23, 2016 at 11:22am

I have to stick with secretarial. I don't see much from the 1983 exemplar in the questioned playbill signature at all. To me they are very different. That "E". The overall slant and base, especially of the last name. Spatially the "T" in "Taylor" seems too small. Just the "or" is so different, but similar to the secretarials. Same with the single loop "E"'s - secretarials only.

Article on Taylor Signatures

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pauline Berry on November 29, 2016 at 4:26pm

The great thing about the Playbill signature is there is more to go on than just the signing itself. It's a terrific typical Elizabeth "T" in "To Denise" for example. There is a kind of "wing" character in many of her capital letters that have sharp angles.

Authentic I believe. Also considering it is not just a signing on a blank piece of paper. Forgers rarely risk the additional exposure of making personalized autos. Personalisation sometimes actually devalues an item after all.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page