Authenticity is Everything
Opinions Sought on this Supposed 1955 Jackie Gleason TLS
Hi All,
Gleason TLS - I find it inconclusive, AutographCOA also, as do some here. But I seek additional opinions based on this new huge scan - please click twice. I will only say I have never seen any secretaries of his sign "Jockie":
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on
-
I would never be comfortable owning this. Just looking at it on initial glance, it does not appear to have the "Great One's" feel or flair. Technically the formation of the J and the lack fo "hook" in the k are concerning. I believe there will always be doubt surrounding this one.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
I agree. Seller refunded me immediately and told me to keep it. I will naturally do more research. There are some "JOckies" that appear minimalist as this only earlier.
-
-
That is very interesting. Good luck with the research, that is what makes this hobby fun.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on
-
Why did the seller allow you to keep it after a refund? I am not familiar with Jackie Gleason’s autograph, but I found the story connected to the magazine article intriguing.
-
-
Seller said it apparently was worthless. It's got some kind of look:
-
-
-
-
Are the top four authentic or secretarial signatures?
-
-
Authentic.
-
-
The autograph in question appears to resemble the 1957 fountain pen and the 1962 contract, but with a combination of separate traits. The “J” and “k” (1957), and the “ac” and “ie” (1962). I have a couple of additional concerns about it. The beginning of the “J” appears to be absent an initial flow. It appears to be slowly drawn. The autograph also appears to have two stops. One in the “J” at the intersection of the loop, and one in the “c”. The “k” is also atypical when compared with every other exemplar provided.
-
-
great observations Mike, I agree. Just speaking from a collector standpoint, I look at a signature like this (and others that are "on the fence") and ask myself, "will I ever be confident in the authenticity of this item"?
there are so many better examples out there.
-
-
I can definitely understand why someone who is familiar with his autograph would have concerns about it based only on its general appearance. I am also curious about the paper that was used. Is it what Jackie Gleason would typically write his private correspondence on during that time period?
-
-
-
Thses are my concerns as well.
© 2025 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
