Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Findbooks 7 hours ago

One of the most difficult signatures to authenticate.

95% of his signed books are postumously "signed", that is to say are either books to which signature cuts have been added or are downright fakes. He was never a celebrity author and did not do book signing events.

I had one of the "posthumous" ones which was the deluxe Collected Short Stories. The signatures for those were from cancelled cheques. You are right about the variance and I remember comparing my example with the signatures in other sets available at the time and seeing a lot of variance even between those.

I don't know AutographCOA but I would suggest you are barking up the wrong tree there. I would try and find a dedicated PKD expert, myself. Easier said than done but you could try one of the leading sci-fi booksellers - L,W. Currey in New York, e.g. It would cost you nothing to send them an email and ask for an opinion.

I am sceptical about your example. There is such a thing as variance, yes, and then there is very atypical - I kind of feel that yours falls into the latter category. However, there are a couple of points in its favour: the red ink is very intriguing and plausible. Secondly, the fact that the book is an Ace paperback. Is it the original Ace double?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edward Sollas 6 hours ago

Thanks very much. This is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for.

It is not the original Ace Double. It is the later standalone Ace 51910 paperback, listed as the 1970s reissue.

I completely understand the concern about the variance. That is actually what has made this so difficult for me to judge. I have found documented examples that look dramatically different from one another, but I do not want to use that as an excuse to make an atypical signature fit.

I have an online review pending with AutographCOA, but regardless of that result I intend to have the physical book examined by a stronger authority before treating it as genuine.

I really appreciate the L. W. Currey suggestion. I am going to contact them.

If you have a moment, I would also be very interested to know what specifically strikes you as atypical about this signature. The P? The construction of “Philip,” the K/D, spacing, or overall movement? That would be extremely helpful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Findbooks 6 hours ago

Even better that it is not the original Ace Double. You have to wonder why a forger would bother to fake a signature on an undistinguished paperback that itself has no real monetary value.

My immediate take on the signature was that it is atypically horizontal and the characters not leaning forward enough. The straightness could be explained by the influence of the printed text below, however.

The P, yes - that loop on the left, unusual.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edward Sollas 6 hours ago

Thanks again, this is really helpful.

I’m adding a few photos of the book itself for context. It’s an Ace 51910 paperback, originally priced at 95¢, and the copy is pretty worn, with visible age, waviness and what looks like some water staining. So, as you noted, it’s definitely not the original Ace Double or an especially valuable copy on its own.

I realize none of that proves anything about the signature, but I thought the physical context might be useful, especially in light of your point about why someone would choose this particular copy to forge.

I’ve also asked the seller for a clear photo of the copyright/publication page so I can pin down the exact printing and date rather than relying on the listing description.

I really appreciate you pointing out the horizontal orientation and the unusual loop in the P. Those are exactly the kinds of specific details I was hoping someone would flag. Once I have the copyright page, I’ll add that too.

Here are the additional photos of the book:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edward Sollas 5 hours ago

Copyright Page:

• ▶ Reply