Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on October 10, 2017 at 5:33am

Fake IMO

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nicholas Tuck on October 10, 2017 at 6:03am

Thanks Karl; any specific aspects of the signature that makes you think this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on October 10, 2017 at 8:00am

Although it is obviously based upon JL’s late 70’s signature style the first thing that struck me as odd about it is that it’s too long, most of his later signatures are shorter than this one.

Also the caricature signature just doesn’t look right. Hard to explain really although I am confident that this is a fake.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on October 10, 2017 at 6:51am

This looks to be the work of the Southern California forgers!!!  Usually you don't like to give out specific details on autographs because would be forgers may pick up on your details and comments....and use them to their advantage. It's happened before!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on October 11, 2017 at 2:19am

Good point although we also have members stating the opinion that we should explain our conclusions in more detail. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t! (-;

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nicholas Tuck on October 11, 2017 at 2:28am

Thanks everyone for views- they do seem to be consistent in saying 'not genuine'. The problem with the 'no detail' approach is that we'd end up with lots of 'fake IMO' and 'genuine IMO' type responses which don't help less knowledgeable members(such as me) appreciate the tell-tales signs/common errors that highlight fakes (and the opposite, of course)?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fab432 on October 10, 2017 at 7:22am

I also believe it is not genuine. It looks too careful to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on October 10, 2017 at 5:34pm

I agree not real.to fluid imo.

• ▶ Reply