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 Bob Shinn on June 15, 2012 at 7:34pm

Steve,

I just took a look at the picture you refered me too,

and I agree that it is an authentic Heston, but it doesnt come close IMHO to the one I was talking about .

for the reason stated above in my response to db.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on June 15, 2012 at 7:33pm

Db....

IMHO I think it is a very good secretarial signature.

Here is what I see that Bothers me: Open top "a" followed by square top "r" and a pretty defined "o" in the Charlton.

The "H" and start of small "e" are not consistent with authentic Exemplars.

and the "ston" is just to neat.

Hope all is well with you and your family as well.....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on June 16, 2012 at 3:08am

I tend to concur. The reason I'm thinking earlier is some similarity to the style of the checks circa '70s on page 1 but as you've pointed out too much dissimilarity. At a later stage in life most signatures become less defined and shakier than more defined. I had posted one which depicted the less crisp and shakier style.

I also located what I believe is a secretarial signed book (I had previously posted but just needed to remember where).

also thought this post from Cyrkin needed to come along regarding secretarial;

Reply by Steve Cyrkin on March 11, 2011 at 4:32pm

Carol M. Lanning was Heston's secretary and personal assistant, and the other signer of that document. She was still employed by him in 2005:

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0408/heston-print.html

and he was referring to Bob Shinn's post;

Bob Shinn on March 11, 2011 at 3:51pm

Steve..

Here is a " ll" from 1986 on legal document.

Secretarial I believe

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on June 17, 2012 at 5:21am

You make some good points and have me reconsidering my opinion. But, allow me to raise a few other points:

* Unlike the other secretarials, the questioned signed book superbly captures the rhythm and essence of Heston's hand.

* if this is a secretary and he or she was THIS practiced and captured his hand so well, why haven't we seen a lot more similar exemplars? Certainly no one is capable of replicating it that well if they rarely signed for him.

* the break between the h and a and the more rounded a are traits that it appears we begin seeing around 2000. The questioned book has it as well as some of the accepted authentic exemplars from this time frame,

* when people suffer from Alzheimer's, their signature can get simpler and more blockish... Not necessarily "sloppy." Look at Ronald Reagan's mid to late 90s signature to see this.

I'm not sure either way. In my mind the jury is still out on this one.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on June 17, 2012 at 11:01am

Not sure if we need to reconsider on one offs. Haven't seen this often on books but if we reconsider then these others become equally complicated; While the book is more straight line & slant difference then the picture it could also be the discovery of a 2nd type of secretarial (as there has been suspicion of more than one).

which leads us into these variations;

The book one I've seen after looking at hundreds of late seem to have this slight looking "r". Brick was first to notice the ill formed "1st L" or "eiffel tower" as I referred to it. You had also noted that you had also noticed some secretarial ones but had not posted any at that time. The ones following are more indicative of many of the signed books with the less defined r.

Isn't this fun! You could be right zip but it's strange of the ones I've seen to date that the one previously posted seems like a one off. Some who sign other's names can get really good at signing the bosses name be it an authorized admin or sister.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on June 17, 2012 at 10:53am

It's great to see Bob posting again. He did some great original work contacting eBay sellers about the secretarial Heston's. Unfortunately most of the sellers that did agree to take their Heston's down, put them up again for sale eventually. I've reposted your inquiry to RR in the past as well.

---

The Heston in question seems to be very much an enigma. The pen strokes have so much of an authentic Heston feel. If it were secretarial, why have none of us seen one like it before? If it were a forgery, why get so much of the Heston feel correct and then produce a signature which no one identifies as Heston's? And why do it on the Beijing Diary instead of an SP. I think this item is probably authentic, unless it was signed by Lydia or Fraser or something like that.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on June 13, 2012 at 5:29pm

Here are the forgeries Brick found on ebay. Preserved for posterity in one handy reference sheet. They are pretty obvious to the trained eye, but I would not be surprised if these fooled many casual collectors.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on June 16, 2012 at 5:42am

Zip, Mike, Bob, Brick aw what the heck et all... Does anyone have the 2002 Letter from Heston to his friends after his announcement that he was retiring due to illness. The one's i've seen are too small to get a good view of the signature. From what it appears it could give rise to this illformed 1st L. I also muse if Heston did sign what to me would be thousands of these letters (big presumption here).

I noticed this one 280901216326 the other day that would appear to me to be on the secretarial signature. Anyone disagree?

If someone does have a decent image of the 2002 letter it would be interesting to compare signatures. From the small image on the passes over link above it appears to be his signature. I then wonder if it's authentic original or authentic facsimile (with the presumption of how many would need to be signed). It would be nice if there were several of them to rule out the facsimile.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on June 16, 2012 at 7:26am

DB....

I agree with you that it looks to be secretarial.

Here are 2 authentic Heston Signatures from 2002, and 1 from 2003.

Hope this helps

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on July 3, 2012 at 11:58pm

Here's a thread on a forum for Charlton Heston which discusses the original signature study thread created by Mr. Zipper:

http://charltonhestonforums.freeforums.org/charlton-heston-autograp...

One of the more intriguing quotes from a poster there: "I once bought quite a lot of paperback copies of Heston when he was signing IN THE ARENA and they are exactly the same signature as the one above with that guy [a picture with Heston's secretarial signature]. And I was right next to Heston as he signed them."

Vague recollections don't stand up to a theory proven by a plethora of evidence, but you can't convince everybody.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on July 4, 2012 at 5:31am

That forum is obviously composed of really dedicated fans. When emotion is involved, the power of denial is very strong. If I was the guy who was pictured with Heston and I learned the photo of the two of us was secretarially signed, I'd be pissed! LOL

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on July 4, 2012 at 7:33am

That certainly has merit.... the opposite however is that they are correct and the study inaccurate. Recall there was also a commentor on the original thread who also surface, whet he claimed, an inperson one as well.

I would however find it perplexing, with several indpendent confirmations of the theory, that the DBL L theory is flawed. As we have seen there are some books that were not signed by Heston as well albeit more the exception than the norm. The additions of people forging the name (outside of secretarial) also seems to be evident as well contrary to conventional thinking. Certainly not as plentiful (thankfully) of Derek Jeters, Williams or Mantles but they are there.

Zip, have you noticed any similar patterns on the forgeries? We may also need some focus on the ill formed R that looks like a short L (or the eiffel tower look).