Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Carpenter on June 23, 2014 at 11:03am

Thanks. If that is the case, then I would say every autograph purchased TTM for 50.00 is genuine

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad B on June 23, 2014 at 11:29am

I agree with you, John. I hope many of the harsh critics who unequivocally stated these were forgeries will recant their statements or at least soften their opinions. It is only fair to Jerry Lee and Judith Lewis.

I still believe this is the most variety in style and feel I have seen from a celebrities autograph but it appears JLL has personally signed all of the questioned examples shown in this discussion. The statement that a secretary signed these was stated as a fact and I think at a minimum most would agree there is good evidence to the opposite. I hope Jerry Lee Lewis was not too bothered by all of this (I know I had a part in it and have told them I was sorry for the hassle) and I hope he doesn't stop signing altogether.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Carpenter on June 23, 2014 at 11:50am

While I now agree they were probably all legit, it still doesnt explain the ones that Mark Roberts got back after he wrote Judith that looks so much closer to the IPs that were posted previously and less like the TTMs we got to see.  It sure is one interesting topic!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on June 23, 2014 at 11:57am

Check a few pages back. One of those signatures looks very similar to the one that Mark Peterson received TTM in 2011, which happens to have the squiggly line.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Roberts on June 23, 2014 at 12:11pm

that is what I was thinking.. why the HUGE difference when I wrote a note and then got back something totally different.  

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry K on June 23, 2014 at 12:01pm

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused as to what exactly is changing people's minds on the authenticity of the squiggly line autograph variety. Does anybody know (or have prior dealings with) the people who are saying their autographs were obtained in person?

Roger indicated his belief that this variety was secretarial, and all such examples (except those that had been offered for sale) seem to have came via the mail. Sellers have definite incentives to say their autographs were obtained in person.

As for the bank checks, I work for a bank, and as far as I know, we don't have an autograph authentication department. If my wife signed on my behalf, the check would definitely be cashed.

I'm even more perplexed that the autographs that came back after the family was called out for secretarials seemed to look more like the original variety that was accepted as real.

I'm not saying that neater version (with two r's in Jerry and a big squiggle) is secretarial, but the apparent change in autograph back toward the accepted version does seem a bit odd to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Roberts on June 23, 2014 at 12:13pm

"I'm even more perplexed that the autographs that came back after the family was called out for secretarials seemed to look more like the original variety that was accepted as real"

Agree!!

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad B on June 23, 2014 at 1:08pm

Henry, I just went back and compared the one (#19 on Steve's composite(page 16 of this study)) you received at a concert to an example with the squiggle (#11). I see many characteristics that lead me to believe the same person signed both. What do you see that about the signature  that points to #11not being signed by JLL?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry K on June 23, 2014 at 1:40pm

I really wasn't speaking to #11 in particular (and mine was taken backstage but I didn't see it get signed).

In #11, there are aspects that look similar to the examples that were accepted (the L leans and the "ewis" seems to trail off) and it isn't as neatly written as the ones that were largely considered secretarial until recently. Still it does have a strange end to the J in Jerry (seems to bend back to the left instead of ending), two distinct Rs and a much more exaggerated squiggly line than the one you received more recently.

Was #11 one you paid for?

I guess I just don't know. I wish there wasn't so much variation and that we had more evidence that the examples folks claim were signed in person were in fact signed in person.

What do you think of my #19 (good or bad)? I wish I had seen it signed in person. I could have been a lot more helpful in this discussion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad B on June 23, 2014 at 8:47pm

I think #19 is good for sure. I did not recall you saying yours was taken backstage but I think you got lucky. As a side note, is that a good cd? I want to pick it up.

There is def. a good deal of variation. There is a video on youtube of a guy opening a ttm from jll. It shows, regardless if a person thinks they are secretarial or in the hand of JLL, how there are quite noticeable variations with signatures even when signed one after another. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6x-5oAKkuQ&app=desktop 

Variety in signature styles does not prove secretarial signatures. It only make it more challenging to authenticate. I think this thread is helping show the variety of authentic signatures available from JLL.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on June 23, 2014 at 9:13pm

That’s true, Chad. He isn’t signing the TTM autographs with the thought that people on a message board will be scrutinizing them. They're coming directly from him. He seems to be trying to a certain extent to give each fan something more personal than just a repetitive signature. That said, as you look at more and more JLL signatures, you will see recurring patterns. It therefore isn’t a case in which he’s sending out autographs that can’t be authenticated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on June 23, 2014 at 12:50pm

Here's another photo that is claimed to have been signed in person that just appeared on eBay:

PSA/DNA:

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 44
• 45
• 46
• 47
• 48
• …
• 126
• Next ›
• Page