Tags:
True - but those are characters in films.
Looking more widely - he is wearing the same jacket and tie in both!
Thanks, Joe. I think it is a better example.
Actually, I am not so comfortable with this last example.
Precisely those 2 things for me. I found one I like - same photo as the OP and your last exemplar. Clearly and cleanly WH's hand. My first is too sloppy. David - what year do you think the photo is based in the pics I posted? That would clinch the "Bern" thing to a degree.
Eric, My thinking is you would have to find a "Bern" of equal standing with the director "Bern". Eric, I could not in my wildest opinion guess the year……In this case it is all about the ink. To me it is all about the inscription on the back…… too personal and intimate…. I think it is real……I would never have seen a forger go to this extent…….But from what I have seen lately, from your high standards, I would pass……but if I were still buying…..all mine.
Eric and Joe W., I really wanted to stay out of this, but there is lots of intrigue in this one. To begin with I have only 1 Huston autograph and it is in a safe deposit box at the bank, so no access at present time. I am a great fan of "The Devil and Daniel Webster", his best, no contest, don't even try to promote another film….Eric when you add the top loop to the "from" that does not exist in your fist photo, it would be the largest letter Houston ever signed. To me the ANS on the back would be signed first name to a colleague…..since he used "Love"…..lots of kissing up……a director.
It makes the sig look sloppy that"f". I may find something else.
Eric, It is the ANS on the back that has me stumped… I like the first name , which you can see on the 1946 document. I am amazed that the 11 exemplar library items I have, not a single word is repeated in the first and second photo in this thread.
© 2025 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service