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

Charlton Heston - secretarials, variations & authentics (post 'em here)

This is the place for the discussion as to the follow-up for the secretarial study thread.

That thread; proposed;

The Theory
Photographs and other memorabilia sent to Mr. Heston's office were signed by a secretary. However, Mr. Heston did authentically sign books through-the-mail.

Real vs. Secretary
In authentic signatures, the R in "Charlton" is distinctly a lowercase "r" and less than half the height of the L. The first four letters are clearly "Char."

In secretarial signatures, the R looks much more like a lowercase "l" and is about the same height as the L. So, the first four letters appear to be "Chall."

and it seems to have merit. However, in looking at hundreds of Hestons of late there are many that fall into the above theory and yet quite a few variations that aren't so clean. There are no sacred cows in this thread but do keep it civil.

Bear in mind as you cascade thru the many examples below there are clearly some that fall into this, some that don't and an interesting variation.

Some commentors have been quick to point out that dealers and sellers of these items may have fallen into following a "bogus" exemplar. I will post Jan Schray's exemplars and the "secretarial" one touted here will be found in her 1997 exemplar book. Thus, without a date on COAs it's hard to tell when something was sold.

Cyrkin in the other thread opted to close it with a number of justifications; ... indisputable work. It's at risk of being adulterated by Hestons being presented as either genuine, out and out forgeries, or variations of known secretarials without the painstaking, focused research and consensus-building that made this study so valuable in the first place. That's beyond the scope of this discussion and is putting the study's clarity and integrity at risk.

I for one could not disagree with this rationale moreso. It is thru the posting of perceived hestons that either lends support, refutes or enhances the theory. I noticed the updates to the original blog include; I will note that, out a hundreds of exemplars, I found a handful of books that did not have a distinct "r" formation. My theory is these books may have been through-the-mail exemplars signed by a secretary. The reason for this could be that Mr. Heston's schedule did not allow for signing at that time or, once his illness took hold, secretaries began signing books through the mail as well as photos.

I've also noted this in same discussion with Zipper and there was a suspicion that other forgeries were apparent. it is the continued flow of questionable non-authentic items that gives strength to any theory. I'll attempt to capture the many examples before they are arbitrarily removed.

6/13/12 - Rules of the Thread;

R1 - stay on subject (don't care for moderated blogs but since owners of threads have little recourse to have comments removed at their discretion).

R2 - if you are going to post a link than at a MINIMUM post the picture of the item. The secretarial study thread has a number of links to non-existent photos. Esp Ebay ones as they have been removed by EBAY or no longer visible. If you don't know how then after you post the comment pm me and I'll capture the picture for posterity.

2 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on June 12, 2012 at 5:53pm

I didn't do anything to the images besides save them. They're not locked for me when I just tried, so I'm not sure. You could always take a picture of the screen and crop it if nothing else works. It looks like this guy/gal is shaping up to be the gerryzu of Heston's, albeit with much cruder forgeries.

You didn't mention that you noticed the missing piece on the 'h,' though I assumed you did since it's pretty hard not to notice. Maybe I'm in the dark, but I haven't seen authentic examples with that piece missing; I've seen the secretarials without it, but not an authentic signature (aside from maybe one freak one I can't recall). You look at the reality of the situation and apply logic, piece together the clues and become comfortable with the signature. I always want the signature to tell me it's real without considering other evidence, otherwise I wouldn't want the item in my collection. We'll probably continue to be at loggerheads on this item because of that distinction.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on June 12, 2012 at 6:05pm

I was going through the last few pages of the signature study and noticed something I thought I'd repost:

The 'h' starts at the top! There a couple other similarities, but when I compare the two, this one still looks written by Heston and the other one just written. Truly, it's not just that the 'h' starts at the top, this one does too, but this is still a very Heston-looking 'h,' (so much so that you can almost miss it). I figure the other one deserves a repost too:

And then this one just sold on eBay some days back:

The Heston is definitely authentic. The Linda Harrison it's kind of hard to tell given what was used to sign it. Still, it's not a complete butchery and given that it's not her usual blue pen and still doesn't look terrible, it's probably good? Why ruin a great Heston signature if it weren't. This item was also sold by a UACC dealer who should know what they're doing. But I'm no Linda Harrison expert, I've only seen her signature on multi-signed items from Planet of the Apes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on June 12, 2012 at 6:19pm

I knew it saw at least one without the hitch on the H. It was in my own collection! LOL

I looked through Rolf's study as well and there are two in there that also do not have the opening stroke on the H.

And, I found a few definite secretarials in my files without it as well.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on June 12, 2012 at 7:18pm

I realized you can completely miss it if you're not looking for it. A very small amount don't seem to have that piece. The difference to me is that you barely notice because they still look like a Heston 'h,' the one from that SP sticks out like a sore thumb.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on June 12, 2012 at 7:57pm

I agree the "ha" from that piece looks odd. Flat without the typical Heston flair.

I guess it boils down to how much is acceptable variance? Where does "atypical but real" cross over to "suspect"?

If I was reviewing a Gus Grissom or Armstrong, the level of acceptable variance is very low. With someone like Heston, I'd be a bit more willing to overlook some atypical traits if the rest of the signature looked good and other factors like speed and pressure were right. You can see speed ticks throughout the signature and good interaction between the components, so that weighs in its favor IMO.

Frankly I wouldnt want it in my collection because it is a question mark. But my gut tells me it's probably ok. I am certainty not saying that with a high level of confidence. :-) If it falls outside your acceptable level of variance, I understand and respect that view.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on June 13, 2012 at 5:23am

The Heston / Harrison from my collection came from Autograph World. I have no further history on it.

I have noticed that it appears uncommon or interesting poses tend to bear authentic signatures more frequently than the common stock poses. Pure speculation, but I can't help but wonder if the unusual stuff (plus books) had a better chance of landing on his desk for his real signature.

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on June 12, 2012 at 10:20am

Brick,

There's nothing to be sorry about. The Heston Secretarial discussion had just drifted too far beyond secretarials...which are so consistent that they're pretty much cut and dry. And as you said, at 80 pages, a lot of good stuff was buried away. I think it was time for it to end.

This promises to be a valuable discussion, because of the forgeries coming out now that it's so much harder to sell secretarials...especially on eBay.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on June 14, 2012 at 5:17am

regretably the first 2 have already sold but there are ways to still resolve

but perhaps ebay can get the third one before it too sells.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on June 12, 2012 at 6:28pm

I found out that iPads don't show the editing toolbar, which has the image controls. You have a Fire...right, Zippy? I'll be at a regular computer within an hour and be able to check.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on June 12, 2012 at 6:48pm

I was using Photoshop on my desktop. Very odd. It appeared the entire image was a locked background and I couldn't unlock the layer. All tools were grayed out.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on June 12, 2012 at 7:22pm

I emailed you the images. Hopefully they'll work.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on June 13, 2012 at 5:37am

Speaking of Books - there are several examples depicted here that have quite abit of similarity and a couple that started with the arrow hook. The latter is often also seen in the identified sp secretarials. There was also some reference to possible secretarial signed books but I can locate any examples at the moment.

The classic signed ones seem authentic but the arrow hook implies a signing style change and of course the last one on Bejing which similar to the 1st but very pronounced. Does anyone see any distortions on these and does anyone have any clear cut secretarial signed books they can post?