We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Elizabeth Taylor. Would like your opinions.

I am looking at this Elizabeth Taylor signed photo but am not convinced it's authentic. Could very well be a secretarial. Would like to have some input on this one. Thanks in advance.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on January 11, 2016 at 11:02am

Looks too deliberate and clean to me. More like her signature in younger days. Odd for a secretary to write such a long greeting but perhaps it was dictated.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 11, 2016 at 11:15am

Yes, the writing is very neat and clean. I love the photo but the writing intrigues me. There are elements which look right but maybe too nice overall. Definitely not rushed.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 12, 2016 at 3:39am

This Getty/Hulton photograph was taken C. 1953 from every source I can find, but this signature suggests something from much earlier. Even in contracts signed with her mother as guardian when she was 13, I can't find this hand and these slants. It appears hard to find a period example with the "z" and "a" connected. Thecead has exemplars back to 1943 and I am not seeing it. By 1952 her signature was much more flowery and established than this.

Eric

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 12, 2016 at 4:00am

Yes, Eric I agree. It does seem the signature and the photo is "out of sync" with each other. I would have to say it's not authentic but I've never seen any other quite like it. I would say someone signed this for her but it was not herself. Still, I do like the vintage photo so inquiring minds had to ask. Thanks my friend.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 12, 2016 at 4:26am

Hi Joe,

No problem. It would seem logic dictates this to be a secretarial. That sort of inscription is often secretarial in nature as you know and FWIW. Too bad its not her later signature on an earlier photo - that is possible - but the reverse? I read a letter in her young hand and that was quite different. I have also never read an entire letter that did not have the word "the" in it at least once!

Eric

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 12, 2016 at 4:31am

I agree. Don't think it is an outright forgery but a person would think if it was a secretary that more examples would be found. It sold on ebay and the last bid while I was watching it was at $80. I love these anomalies.

Also, the word "the" is on the photo too.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 12, 2016 at 4:51am

Here's the link to it. Still has a day left. Bidding is at $90+.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELIZABETH-TAYLOR-1940s-Ink-Signed-8-x-10-Ph...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 12, 2016 at 4:57am

Ah, that is a much better image!

Here is a candid from C. 1944 - what do you make of this?

The "beth" is very odd in the image we are discussing, no?

Elizabeth Taylor C. 1945 click to enlarge

Eric

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 12, 2016 at 5:13am

I first instinct is to say that one is not good as well. That's quite a dramatic "T" and "y" and flowing the first and last name together strikes me as odd as well. That's probably why I could never be an authenticator, I get a vision in my mind what is acceptable to me and shy away from anything too different. But, that's a wonderful photo too. Would be great as an 8 x 10 inch.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 12, 2016 at 5:20am

Hi Joe,

Let's leave that photo aside then. The seller of that candid was one of the folks who helped create thecead. Let's look there instead at the 1944 -1954 signatures. This photo in question, with the bathing suit, can not be earlier than 1944 as she would be...12!

Elizabeth Taylor at thecead.com

Best wishes,

Eric

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on January 12, 2016 at 9:54pm

I hadn't realised that the swimsuit autograph was supposed to be from WWII (per the ebay listing). This cannot be right as the photo is early 50s. I guess it could be from a later war or just be a peacetime gift to the airmen but the signature is still out of sync with the image.

The 1944 candid signature looks too messy and fresh to me, though it could just be rushed and the ink may not be as fresh as the scanner makes it look. Some of the 44-47 thecead examples have some similarities but none have such a messy "beth" or such a gap between "Tay" and "lor".

I have quite a few Liz pieces and from very different periods. If I get a chance I'll try to post some of them within the next week. I just hope they are as genuine as I think they are!!!

Permalink Reply by pjc on January 13, 2016 at 1:16am

Hi this is my first post. I have the same picture in the original envelope I believe. Whih is dated 1953. Not sure if its real or not. But it came from the studio sent direct to my frends dead brother in law. I think.