Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lizzie on December 4, 2014 at 10:19am

I'm assuming this Einstein (from Gottahaveit Sept 13 ) also belongs to this set.   I think most people sign art that they are proud of and wish to either give as gifts or to sell.  As an adult, Michael certainly knew what good art looked like, so I am assuming these should be from his earlier years, as that would at least be a bit more consistent with the skill level.  But then some of the signatures look as though they are from later years?  This one can't have been drawn at age  say, 12, then signed later, as I'm sure he would not have kept the same green crayon to hand!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lizzie on December 4, 2014 at 10:26am

This is another 'immature' appearing piece of work, with an apparently 'older' signature.  

 It is curious that the consignor is not identifying themselves eg via a COA, as this would generally add to the value of the piece, as eg with art works consigned in 2009 by David Gest, who was openly credited as consignor at the time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lizzie on December 4, 2014 at 11:57am

And another today. 

I used to think that Michael spent most of his free time thinking about song lyrics and melodies and choreography...but I'm beginning to wonder!.... LOL

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/32752562_an-original-selfie-pic...

I don't know why this does not look more like the portrait below:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lizzie on December 4, 2014 at 12:04pm

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/32752560_an-original-drawing-of...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian M. Wazac on December 4, 2014 at 10:38pm

You're killing me here Lizzie!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wascher on December 4, 2014 at 12:27pm

No "i" again in Michael, directly into a "c" on both.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian M. Wazac on December 4, 2014 at 10:40pm

So many things wrong with this 'piece" of work.

Just wanted to say the sig itself seems from a differnt hand then the others.

(And the artwork itself is much improved)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sam Iam on December 4, 2014 at 12:28pm

The listing says this has a coa from Real/Epperson

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wascher on December 4, 2014 at 10:39am

I agree.  In the earlier conversation on the other thread one of the things I mentioned was that these are not even close to Young MJ drawing styles.   The other crayon drawings like this one, are the other 1/3 that don't have the same i missing as I pointed out above in my other posts

But all together, its like the writing eras do not match up at all to ANY of the drawings or what one would expect. 

Each auction-house selling them has 3 different styles of the drawings being sold at the same time--Loopy J sigs on drawings, straight J sigs on the drawings, and the crayon drawings like the one you posted above with the i in the sig. 

I hope more people chime in on thoughts, as its just not adding up to me at all - other than none of it makes sense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lizzie on December 4, 2014 at 10:35am

Yes, I agree these do look very similar too. I wonder what date they are expected to be from?  That is usually another piece of information that the consignor is able to provide.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sam Iam on December 4, 2014 at 12:29pm

This also apparently has a coa from real/Epperson
This and the Washington.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AJ Jones on December 4, 2014 at 12:46pm

I think at this point, its safe to say if someone can  draw with minimal talent, they probably can mimic a signature. I have a hard time believing Michael Jackson had so much spare time to sit around and draw self portraits of himself when he clearly suffered from self image issues and detested the way he looked for a majority of life. It does'nt matter what COA comes with it.....it does'nt make it real. Especially when the signature alone is questionable enough on the majority of these images. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 141
• Next ›
• Page