Opinions on this Abraham Lincoln signed card. The seller is country_cat777 and I think it should be custom (seller listed) when we post that way people can go back and look at these sellers. Also look at the George Washington and Lincoln silk ribbons. This can't be real
Provenance: Orrill's Auction and from a Private Sylmar, California Estate.
Notice how "Abraham Lincoln" and the "A" "C" & "L" letters are very bold on the repro to make them stand out. Everything else is blurry. Absolutely no definition or detail to the typeface on the repro.
And by the way, that "signature" looks to me to have been slowly written with a fountain pen rather than the dip pen that Lincoln would have used.
Well, we have now learned that there weren't replicas of the business card, as Etienne had previously stated. So, the question is... why did you state there were replicas when you knew there weren't replicas?
I saw the sellers other image of it and looks like it was written using brown india ink, from a fountain pen. The image provided here is a very poor image of it. JK, do you know how to read ink under an ultraviolet light? There is absolutely no way to fake the age of ink when viewed under an ultraviolet light.
My personal approach is to look at autographs scientifically and I do have some serious concerns about the other business card that you were kind enough to approach.
Ok, John. I'll concede if it helps. That novelty card has never replicated since 1864. My error.
If it was written using a fountain pen as you state then you have seriously hurt your own case. Mass-produced fountain pens were introduced some two decades after Lincoln would have signed this.
As for your obsession with "brown India ink", are you certain it wasn't written with iron gall ink?
No, I have not played around with ultraviolet lights and ink. But here is a question for you: do the lights show the age of the ink or the composition of the ink?
And even if the ink is from the 19th century, how can you be sure it is not a 19th century forgery? Just because it is old does not mean it is real.
I think you indicated that you are new here, which means you missed the whole debate over the Buffalo Bill and Annie Oakley cards, which was very educational.
I don't know about the others here, but I for one would appreciate seeing the image you mention of this Lincoln signature under the ultraviolet light. I'm certainly always open to further learning.
Thank you for clarifying, Etienne.
JK, in response to your email, I mistakenly wrote "fountain" pen when I should have written "not from a fountain pen". I am sorry, I have been multi-tasking today, which I am horrible at doing. I am well versed in the inks, papers, and writing instruments used throughout history.
The auction appears to have been deleted or I would send you a digital image of the signature under the light.
Maybe sometime next week, I'll send some digital images of different autographs (with different ages) under a UV light and give an explanation of what to look for... it will really help when looking at perspective additions to add to your collections. I am exhausted today... it is tough to keep up with you young bucks:)
No offense, but I was actually kidding a bit about no repros. of this in the last century and a half. Let's just call it a draw as both of us have different conclusions about this card.
IMHO, the earlier part of this thread was worth it if we were able to help a fellow collector who sought opinions to avoid making a potentially very expensive mistake.
I am curious how much the card finally hammered for.....
It's so kind of you to help educate us rubes. How did we ever manage before you appeared? :-)
But seriously, post all you can on the light tricks. I am sure everyone would find it interesting.
BTW, I've used quill, dip, and fountain pens, and that Lincoln does not look like a dip pen to me.