Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on November 18, 2012 at 5:14am

I have always been suspect of Redd Foxx autographs but not of checks.  The checks you show are consistent with ones I have seen.  I just assumed "autographs" were likely secretarial not the checks.  I would be surprised if his checks were indeed secretarial.  Often there are variations between an "autograph" and a more mundane signature like a check/  What would be interesting is to find checks signed prior to Sanford Son days.  Early checks are less likely to be secretarial the same with formal contracts and agreements.  If the checks are secretarial it would be interesting and unusual.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on November 18, 2012 at 12:44pm

I agree. What worries me is that every check has the same autograph.  Very little variation, and it seems simplistic (esp. the last name).  The signed document above shows how he wrote his last name and it differs when compared to all of the checks.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on November 18, 2012 at 1:24pm

It does look like someone learned how to write it and did so without a lot of variation.  Certainly glad I didn;t buy one.  i was tempted but thought it a bit too much.  Would be nice to find some more good exemplars,  They likely do not exist but early signed checks would be great to compare with. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on November 20, 2012 at 12:25am

Here is a different variation of a signed check

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on November 21, 2012 at 11:20am

I haven't heard it suggested before that Redd Foxx's checks were signed by a secretary. A lot of good dealers over the years have sold those checks. It wouldn't be a revelation on the scale of Heston secretarials, but it would be pretty interesting. . .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on November 21, 2012 at 11:26am

From my research, it seems that checks dated post 1980 have that same plain signature.  1979 check above, and prior 1979 have the signature similar to the one I posted above.  Notice how the questionable signatures are all on 1985 dated checks.

I agree it wont have as much impact on the hobby as did Heston secretarials, but many people have these checks and a lot of people would be surprised I think.  I was always under the assumption that checks are 'the safest' bet when buying autographs.  This certainly has changed that; at least for now,  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on November 21, 2012 at 12:07pm

The questionable signatures are definitely the the "straight" line ending ones.  Now the only question is did he change secretaries in 1984?  Seems odd he would all of a sudden start using a secretary to sign checks.  So I hope we can round up some pre-1972 checks at a time when it his popularity was a bit more limited to nightclubs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on November 21, 2012 at 3:58pm

I found a couple pre-80 checks.

~~~and then some PSA-encapsulated post-80 checks with the same signature some may feel is secretarial.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J.Seah on November 21, 2012 at 6:16pm

Here are 2 of my Red Foxx autographs for your comparison

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Lougheed on November 22, 2012 at 3:46pm

This is a very irresponsible thread, and should not be compared to the exposé of Charlton Heston secretarials. The Heston fiasco was exposed through a careful study with evidence and hard investigative work. All we have in this thread is that it has come to someone's "attention" that some Redd Foxx signed checks may be secretarial. What needs to be done to make this statement have any value is actual proof to back up the statement. All that you have done, to this point, is cast doubt without anything more than rumor. Can you at least tell us who gave you this information?

This is a card that I have from Donruss that contains a Foxx signature obviously cut from a check. We have now seen that PSA/DNA, JSA, and Donruss, at least, all feel that these signed checks are legitimate. You haven't added one bit of new information that creates any legitimate doubt in these items. Unless you have more information about where you heard this statement or what that statement was based on, it is very careless to infer that these signatures are anything but legitimate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on November 22, 2012 at 5:16pm

I collect checks partly because they are almost a sure thing as far as autographs go. I think what Mike is saying is that there are two distinct signatures. Now the question is are they both in the hand of Redd Foxx or not. This is a legitimate question as far as I'm concerned. Did as time went by he start to use a simpler or quicker signature. I think this a possibility and may explain why the "Redd" seems close in all. It is the "Foxx" that seems hurried in the post 1980 checks. I do not know what criteria JSA and PSA-DNA use in evaluating personal checks that would be interesting to know. I think the more exemplars that can be found especially dated ones the better. If in fact for lack of a better word the "straight" line signature is only found after 1980 then this I think points towards a change of signature in Redd's own hand. I tend to lean, at this stage, at that being the case. I am just not sure Mr. Foxx would have wanted anyone else signing for his money. I would like to see if anyone has index cards of the later signature that are dated. Often collectors would date index cards.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Lougheed on November 22, 2012 at 5:59pm

I agree with you, Scott, almost completely. I think group investigations, a.k.a. signature studies are very valuable and a prime function of this site. I object to these "Studies" beginning with negative statements such as someone hearing inside information that signatures that many people have in their collections are fake, without presenting all of the facts. It’s not fair to people who visit this site, regulars and newbies, to see a thread start with a vague implication about a large group of valuable autographs without any proof. By introducing the doubt right away, there is an immediate stain on those items.

I am all for the truth, not matter how ugly it is. I have destroyed many items in my collection that ended up being fake (including a Heston secretarial). But, just raising flags of personal suspicion (which is really what I think this thread started with) and waiting to see who salutes, is not a valid way to start a “Study”, as this thread is titled.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page