We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Michael Jackson Signing Styles in Julien's Tompkins and Bush Sale

On December 2, Julien's Auctions is selling The Collection of Tompkins and Bush. The collection contains 465 lots of Michael Jackson memorabilia, 287 of them autographed.

Michael Bush and the late Dennis Tompkins were Michael Jackson's costume designers for 25 years, during Jackson's most successful period. They were the consignors of the signed Thriller jacket that Julien's sold for $1,800,000 in June 2011.

Almost all of the autographs in the Tompkins and Bush sale are a variation I'm not familiar with. I've only been looking at Jackson's autograph for a few years, though, and we have members here who have collected him for decades, so I'd appreciate your input and exemplars.

If you know Michael Jackson's autograph well, please look at a few images below from the auction and let me know what you think. Even better, browse the auction and upload any similar examples you have: http://www.julienslive.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/77/

Julien's is the world's premier auction house for Michael Jackson memorabilia, so they would know his autograph better than most of us. I'm just surprised I haven't seen this style before.

Thanks for your help.

Tags: 2012, Julien's, auction, michael jackson, tompkins and bush

13 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Helen on December 21, 2012 at 8:43am

Some people can't be helped. A fool and their money...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TeamMichael777 on December 21, 2012 at 3:11am

Jacket sold for $51,000 is a fake, look and tell me what you think, http://teammichaeljackson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Oscars-197...
Video of the show posted here http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/7358

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MJ-fan-1965 on December 21, 2012 at 4:07am

The auction describes it as "A red synthetic blend tunic with back zipper closure,
accented with large..." (even though they have it on the stand facing forward). I have reviewed the video and do have the same screen shot you have for the back (its one lil blip in the video towards the end) but I cannot be sure there isn't a zipper there... there seems to be a separation at the top of the neck (one part higher than the other) where the material doesn't run straight across. I wouldn't call this particular image a smoking gun. JMO I am glad people are searching for discrepancies though, its how the standee was found :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 21, 2012 at 5:55am

This goes for everyone:

Please be 100% sure, with clear evidence, before you say something is fake or misrepresented. It hurts our credibility if it's later found to be incorrect.

Thanks

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MJ-fan-1965 on December 21, 2012 at 6:38am

I absolutely agree.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle on December 21, 2012 at 7:27am

Yes, we need to stay focused on presenting clear facts and evidence. We can discuss potentials somewhere else first to make sure we are accurate and can back up what we post. Thanks Steve and Taaj and the great researchers for continuing to act on this. Let's just hold our cards close for now while we investigate.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Frost on December 21, 2012 at 6:59am

I am sorry , if you have taken my message wrong or misunderstood what my intentions may be at this point. TeamMichael777, I am on your side and can not thank you enough for your input and help. I am far from bailing out of anything, I have not even reached the half way point. I also have put countless hours into this team project and I have heard from many people who do not wish to come public at this time.

I have been in this business for over 30 years and I have some very important contacts that have shared their opinions and explained the best way of working this major catastrophe out. Please do not be MAD at me, I need you to make this all work out and the goal is exposure and to protect the innocent collectors and fans of Michael Jackson.

Steve, in no way am I intimidated by Julien's or anyone else. I also contacted Darren Julien before the auction with concerns about authenticity. There is no crime in not wanting nor excepting our advice. There is also no crime in trusting your consigner more then any autograph authenticator. Especially when the consigner has credibility and proof of his connection to both the celebrity and the story. I think almost any auction company in the world would have excepted these items as well as the providence that was included. I have seen this many times in the past ,where a wife or a family member has consigned an item that is non authentic but it becomes good solely based upon the consigner.

There is an issue of being informed and not taking another look or not postponing an auction until an honest investigation has been conducted. However it seems as the voices on this discussion were heard in the end, and I believe that Julien's has been offering refunds. This is were our credibility has to be addressed, I feel very comfortably with the honesty and agenda of most members of AML. I do also see the issues of the past and the fighting among members as well as statements being made that have no clear evidence or facts in support to have been one of the reasons for some of the delays. These type of statements may have hurt our credibility a little or may have been a reason for not to be taken seriously at first. Steve, please do not misunderstand, I feel you and most have handled this very professionally and I am proud to have been part of this discussion.

The auction was the Tompkins & Bush collection, and the real crime if there is a crime would be with consigner if fraud or forgery could be proven. To prove criminal intent that is a crime and involves a conscious decision on the part of one party to injure or deprive another is where I believe this issue is heading. In order for this to be taken seriously and to be investigated properly, nothing more then facts and exemplars would be excepted. Theories, guess work and name calling will not help anyone if this case is going to reach the next step and if there is a true belief of fraud.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle on December 21, 2012 at 7:23am

I agree we need investigate, research and figure out real, fake, remake, reissue, etc., behind the scenes and then present it if it passes muster. We do need to stick with facts which is what we have been presenting here and it is those facts that have got us to this point. Let's continue looking for smoking guns and discussing somewhere private before posting here where the facts should be laid out after we are sure that we have our s*** together and our credibility stays intact.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MJ-fan-1965 on December 21, 2012 at 8:21am

I honestly think that we can investigate discrepancies here on this forum, as sometimes what we have can come together with something someone else has. Someone just reading this forum may have info, and might want to sign in to chime in and share what they know (so keeping it all private sometimes isn't the best either). However, stating "this is fake" "that is fake" absolutely not. I have also mentioned this previously to others. If you see something you think "might" have an issue on it, bring it up and I'm game to look at it :) This is my opinion of course, and Steve will need to tell us what direction to go.