Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 3, 2020 at 12:38pm

I won't give an opinion of the authenticity of the characteristics of the autographs since there are members who know them much than me. But the ink looks like it should, including where the damage pulled it away.

The surface overall is heavily degraded and could not be signed smoothly on, so that's a positive too.

Let's see what the member who know their characteristics say.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim McFiver on March 3, 2020 at 8:17pm

It would appear to be authentic based upon the vintage nature of the piece. The signatures and inscription look good, while the photographs damage looks genuine. More research is definitely needed but on the surface, I'd feel fairly good about it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rob kunne on March 4, 2020 at 6:16am

i have many doubts about these autographs but you could contact ''david tomlinson'' or you could search ''laurel and hardy autograph study'' and than you wil start with the page of david.nice examples of genuine and fake l&h autographs to compare with the ones you posted.

mine opinion is that the stan laurel could do but oliver starting his autograph just above the L of LAUREL is something to consider and the O of oliver is not the way he would sign.but i'am not the expert on time periods because there could be some different style of signing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J.Seah on March 4, 2020 at 8:53am

Thanks you for your replies. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J.Seah on March 9, 2020 at 11:52am

Rob Kunne. Thanks for the referral to David Tomlinson on the Laurel & Hardy autographs.

Here is his reply on it :

Hi Jeremiah,

This is a very interesting one.  I really would want to see it close-up and out of the frame to make any proper and conclusive judgement on it.  I have not seen the likes of this before - there are characteristics that run in its favour and a just a few that go against it.....which on balance ,at the moment, I think its is "probably" genuine.

As you may know, it is very rare for Oliver Hardy to inscribe and hence there isn't a large database of his handwriting.  However, from the small database I have there are reasonable number of matches across the handwriting style and lettering characteristics and in the type of inscription used (eg the B, t, the use of "   ", the numerals).....though I have to say that the "Best wishes always" salutation is a salutation that has been used in many L&H forgeries, though in a Laurel capitalised salutation.  The Oliver Hardy signing is also reasonably good.  

If the Ollie is a forgery it is a very good one given that there is little access to handwriting exemplars - few forgers would want to fake something so different as this.  They usually go for mainstream items and of course use more appealing media. 

The Stan Laurel, though not A1 perfect in form, does reasonably fit signings from this period (I've got quite a number 1930 signed laurel cheques on database to have made this comparison).    Also, what is good is that the Laurel was written in a different style/ink flow...possibly different pen...indicating two different hands.  its amazing how many L&H forgeries have been written in  the same style/same pen  (ie same hand!) 

The photo media is correct for the time...standard Hal Roach studio photo publicity - the double derbie pose.   The oddity is that Oliver has signed/inscribed first and Stan has just signed it.  They would 99% usually sign at the base of the photo under their persona...with Stan inscribing in CAPITALS.   This is a practice they had adopted throughout the 1930s.  This is obviously an early L&H signing well before their peak, so we should expect oddities.  Indeed I have seen a number of signings along this edge....but Stan inscribing (in capitals) first and Ollie just tagging in his autograph afterwards.  Now what I like about this autograph is that Stan has tucked his autograph before the Oliver Hardy signing.....so it reads Laurel and Hardy.  Also, he has fitted it just to the right of his shoulder, as he would very rarely write to impair the image.  This all adds to its authenticity....placement being good. 

So, yes, from what I can see I believe it to be probably genuine.

It seems a bit odd why anyone would want to frame it in this frame which obscures the early part of the inscription.  Its also sad that the signing hasn't been looked after.  Its condition does spoil it a bit, I'm afraid - but the Ollie signing and its age makes it important.  Have you had it out of the frame to see the inscription in full?  It is also worth looking at the reverse of the photo for photographic marks.  I presume the photo looks vintage, possibly on thick photographic paper/card.  It may be a bit silvered too.  You may find a Hal Roach studio photo mark on it or even a Stax photographer mark, which would help more to authentication (as forgeries are unlikely to appear on genuine 1930's photos)...but not all genuine studio photos were stamped.

Overall, even given its condition, i think it is a very good deal.

I hope this has been of some help....I would love to see a full  image of the signing out of the frame.

All the best,

Dave Tomlinson 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 9, 2020 at 12:23pm

Wow...what a beautifully detailed reply!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on March 9, 2020 at 12:30pm

+1!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rob kunne on March 9, 2020 at 12:32pm

you can't say he didn't take the time to look at it ''ha ha''... i was wrong about the hardy but i did mention the time period. yes, david is great and helpfull and realy a big fan and more than that because he knows where he is talking about. thanks for the info.

• ▶ Reply