Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 16, 2011 at 8:51am

Thanks for posting that picture Bl.

Seems like a very flat steady surface to get a great inscription from.

With such a steady surface, you would think that downstroke on the "T"

would match the Bill White Study and The Reznikoff Video that show Authentic Reagans curving to the left.

But it doesn't....."

and no amount of explaining it away or ignoring the above studys

is going to make the Goodman "T" look good

 

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 16, 2011 at 8:55am

Herman

I appreciate the offer and would love to take you up on it.

I do hope you know that I think your Study, John's excellant video, and Bill Whites Study are outstanding examples of Authentic Reagans.

I use them as well as my reference library all the time.

But nothing in those studies make the Goodman Reagan look authentic to me.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on May 16, 2011 at 9:25am

You're entitled to your opinion, Bob.  Any comment on the similarity of the "L" in "Luck" on the Goodman Reagan and the "L" in "Love" on the $2988 Reagan?

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 17, 2011 at 10:12am

 Rez Auth Reagan     Rez Auth        RR Auth      Goodman

 

 

 

 

 

Herman...

I like the 2010 RR Auction Reagan very much.

The "To" in the 2010 RR Auction Matches Bill White's Study,

John Reznikoff's University Archive Video, and your Pen & Quill

Study on Authentic Reagan's.

It does not even come close to the "TO" on the Goodman SP.

The "O" in "TO" in the Authentic Reagans look like Zero's, while the Goodman

looks like the #6

Also, the downstroke on the "T" on the RR 2010 Auction SP has the same curve to the left, as the other Authentic Reagans I have Pictured above.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on May 17, 2011 at 11:02am

Bob, Then do you believe the 2011 RR Auction Reagan is secretarial or a forgery?

 

In the late 1930s-1940s, Reagan had no personal secretary (except for his mother). General autographed photo requests that didn't go to his mother were handled by the Warner Bros. publicity department - they didn't try to imitate Reagan's signature; the "T" wouldn't even be that close to the his actual "T" on those sent out by the Studio.

 

As far as being a forgery, wouldn't the forger have made a "T" that looked like an authentic Reagan "T" with a correctly formed and angled cross-bar and a correct downstroke curving to the left, and an "o" in "To" that didn't look like a "6"?

Permalink Reply by Brandon Mysinger on May 16, 2011 at 11:21am

CHA-CHING!  Now those prices are far more in-line with actual value.  Better hurry and buy them before people realize the importance of a Morales COA.

 

GOD BLESS YOU STEVE!!! ;)

 

For those of you in Rio Linda and at Autograph Alert, this post is 1000% satire.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 16, 2011 at 5:20am

well unless Saul got snookered....   at least it is not the letter from 2006 that had floated around in '06;

 

A red-faced auction house was forced to withdraw a letter it believed was written and signed by the late President Ronald Reagan while he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease after it discovered it was a forgery.

The autographed letter was supposed to be auctioned off this month, but Bill Panagopulos, president of Alexander Autographs in Greenwich, Conn., told CBSNews.com the letter was withdrawn after the forger came forward and admitted his handiwork.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/17/national/main1215241.shtml for the rest of the story.

so unless that "forger" is at it again here... looks like we have differing opinions.  BTW, did anyone ever get an answer as to who was this forger that came forward anyway?

 

nonetheless, with R&R's money back guarantee in this case is a good thing if need be (like Alexanders).  Although if this "unnamed forger" had not for some reason come forward would the same debate be raging?

 

Does raise an interesting question on provenance and when "good opinionators" disagree... who does one believe even with the abundance of signature studies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 16, 2011 at 5:48am

Hey DB...

How have you been.

Take a look at the 3"T",s I posted and let me know what you think.

I always value your opinion...

Bob

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 16, 2011 at 7:16am

Hey Bob ~  rhese are the types of questions that need to be asked and this is a good forum to ask them.  Look what a simple inquiry on Heston launched albeit taking how many years?  What's good is that we may all agree to disagree at the end of the day but so long as people are willing to look at what's been done to date and speak on it without being disagreeable is a good thing.    We might have one that falls in the grey area and if that's the case then it's up to the final "bidders" to vote with their wallets...

 

In the meantime, it's always good to ask questions, gaining clarity and information along the way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Panagopulos on May 16, 2011 at 11:29am

Why hello, DB - knew a chance to bash me would draw you out of your cave! BTW - you'd be surprised at the number of experts, many on this site, who were shown the very same piece and signed off on it. Unlike you, I'm not one to kiss and tell. I could have quietly withdrawn the piece (as many of my contemporaries are wont to do), but since we already had press on the piece, I voluntarily went to the press with the forgery story. I'm still being congratulated on that move.

Now...STFU. 

Herman, old friend, I'm surprised at you. You can honestly tell me that the letter size and spacing are even remotely similar? And someone signing on a portfolio would certainly NOT write in tiny letters - they would be larger and more sloppily penned.

If this item isn't a forgery or secretarial, Ronnie must have been on the sauce.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on May 16, 2011 at 11:48am

Bill, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this one. It is undoubtedly authentic. Reagan didn't have a personal secretary at Warner's who would imitate his handwriting; secretaries signed his name as they signed other actors' autographs. His mother signed photos for him, but not this one. As far as it being a forgery, if you believe that, then why believe that Saul Goodman obtained it in person? --- Herman

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 16, 2011 at 12:04pm

HD,  what Bob has pointed out that you concur with is there exists at least one variation (even you concur with) that does not follow the published works.  Thus something needs to be mitigated ~ either the SP or the studies.  I'd like to also believe there are other telltale signs as I mention below that mitigate it, in your opinion, as authentic.  

 

and HD you are right - why believe that Saul obtain this one in person is a very good question.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page