Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 12, 2015 at 3:53pm

Hello,

Don't know this signature but it appears to show uneven likely genuine age tone on the Reverse, suggesting long term exposure in an album face down (sig up) but, interestingly, not mounted it seems. Card is by Kropp and of the correct period - late 40's. That does not equate to anything. Odd creases at right, no? Rather fresh ink too? Many of my purple fountain sigs have faded - most of those are on photo paper though. But it seems to be a little unusual compared to the in person sigs shown at the UACC study which notes the consistency of his in person sigs and this sig looks rather too cohesively connected, these loops look...a little odd - very circular - and sort of short "skippy" "t" crosses as well, maybe heading the wrong way? What do you think? It it too fluid?

Best wishes,

               Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gio on November 12, 2015 at 6:01pm

Hello Eric, Thank you for your insight on this item. I agree the ink does look fresh like if it was done yesterday. The seller said it has not been authenticated and makes no guarantee on the item. He is not the original owner and says it was signed in 1947. I was looking over his in person signatures and he usually doesn't connect the K to the S, which raises doubt. The frank part of the signature looks good to me and the "K" looks like an "L" which Sinatra is know to do this. It does have a bid already for 250$. 

Regards, Gio

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 12, 2015 at 6:10pm

Hi Gio,

Is that tape on the front as well? I am not fond of the shapes of the loops in "F" or "S" among other things such as the break before the "a" in "Sinatra".

Best wishes,

                 Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 12, 2015 at 6:35pm

Gio,

 In an odd...coincidence...Hemingway's house is in Key West and so is the grave of his cat..."Frank Sinatra", maybe 1000 feet away from the spot shown on that postcard! ;)

Best wishes,

                  Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gio on November 12, 2015 at 9:14pm

Hello Again, it does appear as though it has tape in the middle eventhough the seller mentions nothing about that. Here is the listing. He also has a very authentic looking joe louis signature again with lots of damage like this one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/121811036346?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&a...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on November 12, 2015 at 6:34pm

I'm not an expert by any means but this one may be good.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 12, 2015 at 6:44pm

Hello Joe,

Well, there seems to be enough there to give one pause and probably pass (for me)- the three creases, the tape, the seemingly unusual forms, the odd connection of "K" and "S", odd loops and negative spaces, fresh ink over uneven aged surfaces with no mounting marks. The base of the "S" seems a bit low. The dot over the "i" (not placed over the "a") and the cross on the "t" seems a bit unusual in attack. And the break before the "a" in "Sinatra". What do you make of the overall base line? What do you see?

Best wishes,

                   Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on November 12, 2015 at 8:46pm

If it's a forgery it's a good one. The $250 bid shouldn't scare anyone as his signatures can double that. If real it would most definitely be an in-person example and the sig variations are quite possible. The other condition issues shouldn't hurt the value. It would look great matted with a photo.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 12, 2015 at 8:52pm

Hi Joe,

How many have you seen with this break before the"a" in Sinatra? Along with all the other things and condition - yet fresh ink? Would you say this is typical of a C. 1950 in person Sinatra? I see more bad then good here? He is known for consistency in this period, no?

Best wishes,

                 Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on November 12, 2015 at 8:58pm

I'm not trying to defend this signature. I wouldn't buy any Sinatra unless it was from one of my trusting sources or with solid TPA. But, of the many easily detected bad signatures I have seen I'm not convinced this one has to be bad. But, just my opinion. I'm probably wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 12, 2015 at 9:09pm

Hi Joe,

Just my opinion as well - there just seems enough to warrant a pass over such an item. What are the strengths? We see some weaknesses.

Best wishes,

                    Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on November 12, 2015 at 9:27pm

The listing of the Sinatra states a possible 1947 date of signing. Here is a 1944 signature which Frank's "k" and "S" is tied together. This photo is referenced on the PSA/DNA web site. Still not making a case for this signature. Not a potential bidder or knowledge of who the seller is. Just, think it may be good. Just maybe. There are far more knowledgeable people on this subject.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• 1944-frank-sinatra-signature-3.jpg, 104 KB

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page