Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by goodcat on April 17, 2018 at 9:28pm

I'm going to be very honest

There's more than one thing I don't like about this from my first impression to looking at the signature, handwriting, printing and numbers

Please be careful if your thinking of pulling the trigger on this one

Some things match up while other forms don't

I can't say for sure, but MM sig looks like it's on top of the bank stamp for one. Does anyone else see this?

I have not seen any example where MM has printed on a cheque what the funds are for

It's very uncommon that MM sign both M's nearly the same. It can happen, but not typically.

One of the numbers and written letters is completely opposite of how she typically makes it. It's very rare that people change how they do certain common forms. 

I'm interested in a MM signed something one day, but to pull the trigger, I'm gonna want 2 mountains of provenance as well as feel comfortable that it matches my own eyes

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by goodcat on April 17, 2018 at 9:47pm

BTW...

The sig does "resemble" what an early 1950's looks like before her more flambouyent L

And the printing is reasonably close to her print style

This could also be a secretarial????

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on April 17, 2018 at 10:12pm

I think you may be being overly cautious on this one goodcat.

This is an early signature and is therefore quite different to the later rushed examples.

I agree that the printed lettering to the bottom left is unusual and the slope in the recipient's  name and the amount in words seems to differ slightly.

Not sure about the bank stamp point. From the scan I cannot really see that the handwriting is clearly over the stamps but you would probably need to see the item in the flesh to say for sure.

Here is an even earlier cheque for comparison. The bank stamps are on the back. Being earlier, the signature is even neater. The bank branch name is similar - maybe the branch name changed between 1948 and 1951.

Despite what I say, you are probably right to urge caution. I also wouldn't really want all that tape or tape residue over the signature anyway.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by goodcat on April 17, 2018 at 10:23pm

I'm going to send a friend request to talk about the same trait I see in your example as I see in the OP example. And it doesn't match with MM hand style. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by goodcat on April 17, 2018 at 11:33pm

PS..

a good question would be...(in association w/ pug named eva comment)

when did MM have her first secretary to sign for her?

Can anyone answer this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by goodcat on April 18, 2018 at 12:35am

the most significant trait of your example is the "and"

that is definitely a MM trait

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel S. on April 18, 2018 at 6:19am

Thanks guys. You scared me off this one.  I tend to be overly cautious on these.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on April 18, 2018 at 11:40am

GoodCat has been making most of the comments I would have were I to be here earlier. I don't get a strong 1951 vibe from it. I think you made the right decision to pass on this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 18, 2018 at 11:56am

Perhaps odd hand, lotta tape, no eye appeal, general condition. Seems a lot of ink for her hand. Pass (after looking into that date and all). It does appear the signer has seen later Marilyn's.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by goodcat on April 18, 2018 at 12:48pm

a couple writing concerns...

the number 8... in talking w/ pug and viewing more cheques, it appears she may have had 2 different constructions. One going from left to right finish and the other going from right to left finish. This is very odd. There was a time when I was experimenting with my eights and how to form them, but that was early in childhood. It seems odd that an adult would have 2 different forms. 

The D in December also looks like an opposite construction. Her D's are very distinct and in all examples I've seen... remain consistent. 

It's been agreed that the printed notation is odd. 

She has a few differing number 5 forms and these ones are within reason. So is the "L" and the way the 2 zero's form "00".

Plus... her early years were indeed a bit more heavy handed, BUT she also wrote every letter clearly. In particular Im referring to the "lyn" ending here, which I think is what Eric is also referring to?

In conclusion, I just wouldn't be comfortable looking at this on my wall. 

I thinks it's very important to find out when she started having a secretary sign for her. By 1951 she had already gained serious attention and popularity. 

This OP item requires more research or just leave it as an item that remains questionable?

Who is the leading authority ('s) on Monroe signatures?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel S. on April 18, 2018 at 1:12pm

Thanks all for this great insight!  I will definitely steer clear....just not worth the risk.  It seemed odd that the same auction house was selling a single blank check

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pauline Berry on April 18, 2018 at 9:28pm

I have no doubt this is her autograph from this time frame as being right on. For example on tour as a bit part, but featured, actress in the Marx Brother's Film "Love Happy", she signed like this in 1950. The double for Harpo means literally she was promoting the film with Harpo's stand in, who also signed, so yes, she wasn't very famous here, it was all about to happen.

It is also Marilyn Monroe's handwriting in the left hand lower corner in print For Bal of rent.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page