We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Marilyn Monroe - real or not
I am going to an auction tomorrow and there is a lot of autographed photos including this signed photo. Now I am no expect on Miss Monroe and have scanned the web to see if I can find this photo. I have been unsuccessful so....Has anyone seen this signed photo before and if so, do you think this is a pre-print. Any help would be appreciated.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Slack on
-
-
-
-
-
Photos I took today.
can’t see any ink
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Hello Martin,
Great pics. If you had captured the "ink" in the lighting shown below that would have really nailed it down I think.
-
-
Here.
The jagged nature is what I described yesterday - the machine could not do curves. However, much roughness is caused by the paper as well. I was wondering if it was glossy and, if not, did that play a role is the resulting signature - it appears it did. It seems odd to use an Autopen on such cheap low quality print but that is what it appears. When a stroke is not aligned with the artifacts or texture of the print it still appears Autopen ink, not part of the image. I had thought some other facsimile might be the case.
All other traits are present but I am surprised at the lack of photo quality.
-
-
And a closer look still:
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
There are no known Marilyn Monroe autopens, and after 60 years we would know. This is a forgery. Whether machine signed or not, that is what it is.
-
-
That is true, but then produced how? If there is no ink visible at all as just posted by Martin then the possibilities narrow. Pauline thought likely Autopen and also agreed that it appears her signature I believe - the lighter "Monroe" is something to consider. Malicious forgery or studio preprint/facsimile? This is a strange one. If there were ink Martin would have seen it, so Autopen appears ruled out...stamp as well.
-
-
From Martin's "no ink observation" and these better images I am left thinking it might be part of the print? The "fade" of the "Monroe" is so very even and odd.
-
-
The dark dots to the immediate right of the red dots are of interest. What has no ink, looks like a stamp in places but isn't? All I can think is it is in the image with the "Monroe" looking like that and no ink present.
-
-
Yes, this must be a stamp. It has all the characteristics. And it's not on an old photo. Photos until digitals were continuous tone.
Pauline, did her fan club or studio sometimes use a stamp? I'm not aware of any on photos if there are any but perhaps on some materials.
I don't see the back of the photo. Did I miss it? That's critical.
-
-
It really appears on top of the image but wouldn't Martin have seen the (often flat) ink used with a stamp? There does appear some pooling but would a stamp produce the even light "Monroe"? I am not sure of the type of photo or age unless the paper was faked/"baked" - the first true color photographs in the 19th century were certainly not continuous tone. Indeed, the back is often vital. I have seen a single (obvious) stamped postcard bearing a much earlier signature form. This signature style is C. 1955-1958 or so. The photo was taken in 1953.
Photos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
