Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 1, 2018 at 10:38am

It definitely doesn't look authentic to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JackGotLucky on February 1, 2018 at 6:54pm

Sorry, but not authentic to me either.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by cw on February 2, 2018 at 11:11pm

03-02-2018%2008-08-06.png

What makes you so sure? In my opinion, there are many similarities with other signatures.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 2, 2018 at 11:30pm

Well, I did not look at the image - but yours is top left? Only a surface appearance. Many differences. The bottom of some strokes as in the "M" appears to be heading the wrong way . The sharp point where "o" turn to "r", and the trail off stroke is quite different. Only on the surface do they look the same.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by goodcat on February 2, 2018 at 11:46pm

Carsten

Similarities is the key word

Same is another key word

And there in-lies the difference between Fake vs Legit

And this is where the trained eye comes into play to fight against the trained forgers hand

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JackGotLucky on February 3, 2018 at 8:32am

The incorrect formation of the "RR" is this specific forgers trademark error that he consistently gets wrong. Never mind the drawn "O" that precedes it. Also, the deformed "N" appears to not be connected to the "O" that precedes it and was done in a separate stroke, whereas Jim always signed with these two letters connected to each other. Just a few issues of it's many that make it a forgery to my eye.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 3, 2018 at 9:07am

I agree that the "ORR" and "ON" in particular stick out as not looking correct. Overall, the signature doesn't compare well with authentic examples.

• ▶ Reply