Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 6, 2019 at 12:34pm

The style of the "fin" suggests C. 1956 but I am concerned because the first name is written in one shot, odd for the time I think, and her baseline seems atypical to me at this point. I need to do looking. Still learning. Much good appears there including the pronounced "e", the lay of the loops perhaps, and the rest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 6, 2019 at 12:59pm

The first "spike" before the "a" seems soft and the "a" seems atypically large in relation.  The "r" seems earlier in date then much of the signature in style.  The "i" dot seems atypical - often a simple dot or slash to the right angled down a bit.  Overall it appears rather neat despite the baseline and apparent(?) fluidity, but the last name should be the most legible of the two I understand.  The signing angle seems atypical as well.  The second "M" loops look to usually be grouped a little tighter than here.  Still looking...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 6, 2019 at 2:17pm

Some of the last name seems constructed correctly (the first and second "o" (with its kickback) for example, but some not.  Are the letters too large ("o"?) or a bit slow/neat?  I am not sure about the shape/relationship between the two "o"'s and also the "e" (noting the "e" can be different).  I can't find an "l" like that shown here in anything Pauline has which is connected the the rest of the first name as here, and at those times MM is already using quite spiky "M" loops (which usually echo each other at top) even in IP. This would be a bit neat for an IP it seems.  Of note, every signature, most all IP, at the Kuflik Collection is signed on an upward-right slant and nowhere near as legible as this example. Every exemplar there with anything like this "l" is again separated from the first portion of the first name.  Every exemplar shown there has the "i" dot as a dot or a side-slash/tick (a very few and later) - none have the downward stroke shown here.  I do see something like the OP baseline in some IP's.  Still looking...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 6, 2019 at 3:31pm

That is not a Zip Code for NJ but the Midwest and it is printed quite a ways away from the rest on the lower edge - can't glean much from the Reverse. Obverse?  Still looking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on July 6, 2019 at 3:38pm

That's definitely not a zip code. Zip codes were introduced in 1963.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 6, 2019 at 3:40pm

I know that Steve, thanks - I am looking at everything :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on July 6, 2019 at 3:49pm

Ahhh...OK. 

Try to come to an authenticity opinion TPA style, where the ink is all that matters. Well the graphite in this case, since it's signed in pencil.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 6, 2019 at 3:59pm

Well, I am going about it the usual way for me. :) Remember the "1953 MM signed" Flamingo menu I ruled out because of the date Vegas sales tax was introduced, the ads, logos and the 1953 sig style? Trying to do it my usual anyway, and this is not my strong area of course.  There is more there than ink there, why not use it?  Of what opinion are you regarding this pencil signature? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on July 6, 2019 at 5:07pm

I do recall that menu. Great research.

I'll tell you what I think of it once other members give their opinions.

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on July 7, 2019 at 3:55pm

Thanks, Pauline. I really value your opinion, and how you detailed it. Thanks for your feedback, too, Eric. I appreciate all the time you've put in.

I think it's real, too. One person who knows Marilyn's autograph well didn't feel comfortable with it. Two others who know her well had no doubt that it was real.

The owner, a teacher, said his mom happened to be in Atlantic city when Marilyn was in town promoting one of her movies. He said it was circa 1953. I think he was born in the early-mid 1960s but I didn't ask.

His mom got Marilyn's autograph then, and took two photos as best as she was able.

It was actually 1952 and Marilyn was there to promote Monkey Business.

These are the images she took and the front of the postcard:

Here's a promo from that day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZediTaClA

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 8, 2019 at 11:05am

Hi Steve, Pauline,

Thank you - something has gone badly and I was using this as a much needed distraction throughout the day! Sorry I never got back to it. Have learned a LOT, thanks Pauline! The combination of the fin and the single-word first name signature really threw me and got me off base by 4 years. But, errors pave the word to knowledge :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pauline Berry on July 7, 2019 at 3:58pm

I have a lot of faith in this signing. I know the "fin" is small, but it's got everything in tiny detail. It reminds me a little of this one signed about four years after linked below. The "fin" is similar.

But everything else is there too, in my opinion, in this pencil signing. The large size is also a big plus and confirmation. The M's can often measure over an inch in length.

I find that she didn't write from the bottom left angling up to the top right at a 45 degree angle the most dissimilar thing, but I guess she was just handed the card and going for it.

In this one below, for once, incidentally, the M of Marilyn looks like an M, but it still consists of the same sharp loops that made up the M all along. The "fin" is a very similar construction. The common theme is the speed between both signings, so very different at first glance, but the looseness or spidery vibe increased with her fame and confidence. So from 1955 that expansive spidery-ness was there in public signings. If that sprawling spidery look is there, it's a big stamp of authenticity IMO.

I really love the last five letters of Monroe, in Steve's item, only she could have written those IMO

I think your signature is a little earlier Steve? 1952-1954 perhaps? She had not gone full spider then.

Edit: I see you have said that is is 1952

Great! I haven't seen many signings from this era. She had just started dating DiMaggio who was famously photographed with her for the first time, visiting the set of Monkey Business.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page