Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James on September 14, 2014 at 2:52pm

Here is the other one.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• image.jpg, 265 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max Rickardsson on September 14, 2014 at 3:41pm

Pre.print signature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on September 14, 2014 at 2:54pm

It might not be that hard to figure out which is already deemed authentic, but anyway...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by heath emery on September 14, 2014 at 3:26pm

First one looks more promising at first glance

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max Rickardsson on September 14, 2014 at 3:40pm

First one is a laughable forgery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on September 14, 2014 at 4:10pm

Ok, so here's the deal. As many people know, there was tremendous variation in Elvis' signature. I think there is a certain style of his signature that many people not familiar with his variations look to as an authentic example. Neither one of these is that more common type. The first one is a signed movie still from his movie "Girls, Girls, Girls", while the second is an authentic example from a website about legitimate Elvis autograph types.
If you examine each side by side, there are a lot of similarities. The word "Thanks" is very similar in both. The "E" is detached from the "l" in both. The curve at the the bottom of the first "l" is almost identical. The s in Elvis is attached to the P, and the bottom of the P forms close to a diamond shape in both. The r is pointy in both. The last l is similar in both, and slants to the right. The last e is extremely similar, and the y begins with an elongated nearly straight line, and finally, the loop around formed by the y is also quite similar.
The second is authentic. And if the first is not authentic, it is a nice secretarial job. This was likely signed on the set, as movie companies gave these to the actors to sign for fans or mail them out. I don't believe Elvis often had others sign for him on set. And in fact, Rich Consola, an Elvis expert for PSA/DNA has said that during this time frame, the movie set was probably the best place to get an authentic Elvis autograph. I think the chances of the first being authentic are strong actually.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on September 14, 2014 at 6:42pm

I don't like either signature, but the handwriting looks close.  the handwriting doesn't match the signature at all. totally different slant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on September 14, 2014 at 8:16pm

I agree with you absolutely on the slant on top not matching the slant on bottom, and that did bother me about both. So you all may be entirely correct about both. I kind of feel now they're either BOTH good or BOTH bad. I also feel that possibly whoever signed the second also may have been the signer of the first. The second came from Elvisblog.net, and said that it was an authenticated sig. However, the question is by whom of course. I haven't read through the site in a while. So if anyone wants to check it out, they can. THANKS TO EVERYONE for their opinions.

Terrier8HOF, I agree that the handwriting looks close. And again, you all may be right about the autographs. But Elvis' sig did vary a lot. He is a tough one I think.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on September 15, 2014 at 3:53am

I agree that Elvis can be tough because there are some very good forgeries out there, but I have never seen an authentic Elvis signatures with these letter formations, and slant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Gregory on September 14, 2014 at 7:26pm

Don't like either

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Viola on September 15, 2014 at 5:24am

Me either.  First one seemslike an attempt, but forged.  The second one looks like a pre-print on one of those RCA bonus cards or photos.

• ▶ Reply