The top of the P differs as does most notably the underline.
However, it is apparently the only one of those pictured that was signed in fountain pen instead of pencil.
That might account for some of the differences.
Thank you for taking a look and sharing your comments JK. I hadn't considered differences from fountain pen versus crayon or pencil, etc. I had some concerns that the ink and paper on my OP looked fairly new relative to the date of this signature style. Regardless, you have given me some hope, as well as another facet to consider when I am trying to authenticate an autograph. Appreciate the help and the lesson.
What medium are most signatures from this period signed in? The ink and paper also strike me as odd. These un-aged undedicated perfect little cuts always give me pause.
Never buy anything framed without it being opened or you might be in for a surprise. Many houses do not guarantee anything framed.
Thanks again, Eric. I have learned to question these cuts and vintage album pages from you. One of the exemplars I provided was what appears to be an uncommon signature on page like my OP. Both exemplars are from RR Auction archive.
I am not an artist so cannot tell the difference among writing instruments. However, most likely authentic exemplars I have found look like crayon or colored pencil. Slips of paper are uncommon with most signatures appearing on programs, books, envelopes, etc. It is more typical to find a signature on Picasso ephemera or along with additional writing as with a note or envelope. As JK notes, this being in fountain pen may account for some differences but also makes it atypical.
Going back to the concerns I noted in my OP, seems like my spidey senses were raising the right concerns.
That is what I was driving at - fountain might be atypical. There seems to be a discrepancy between the age of the paper and the age of the ink.
I agree. As opposed to some of my previous posts where it looked like new ink on vintage paper, to me this signature looks like new ink on new paper. Beyond my concerns about the form of the "P" and underline, both the ink and the paper seem out of sync with other Picasso signed items I have seen.
Thank you for your fresh eyes and years of experience.
Most welcome. :)
I am not by any means insisting on it's authenticity but another thing that occurred to me....
A forger might be expected to use pencil or crayon to forge a Picasso. It would be more typical.
That doesn't prove anything, of course.
Exactly, one piece of a larger puzzle.
Thanks for keeping the gears in my head turning, JK. I love learning from others' experience and fresh perspectives. Although I don't always get to a definitive conclusion on authencity, I am always learning from other members. Appreciate you keeping my mind open.