Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on October 9, 2015 at 4:33pm

I think its obvious that these are stamps.  they wouldn't fool anyone and I'm sure there were not intended to fool anyone.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on October 9, 2015 at 4:36pm

speaking of funny stuff, even the stamps have dotted "i" at the end of the signature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on October 9, 2015 at 5:10pm

and the looped "Y" and the "J" that flows through at the end of the stroke, at least they used an authentic version of signature for the stamp.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on October 9, 2015 at 5:20pm

yeah, but they were probably stamped by Whitten! LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on October 9, 2015 at 5:56pm

You're killing me, my side hurts now!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on October 9, 2015 at 5:58pm

First, I am pleased the discussion has remained civil and friendly despite differing opinions. We are all adults and hopefully can continue to debate the matter with passion without diminishing others.

A few observations:

One trait that appears in verified authentic JLL signatures from all eras is interaction between the elements as Mark Roberts alluded to. He doesn’t do it all the time, but he does it a lot. By this I mean, quickly moving from one component to the signature to the next and either connecting the letters or leaving ink trails where the pen moved quickly. From the “y” to the “Lee” and the “Lee” to the “Lewis.” We see this trait often on the contracts from the 60s up to very recent nearly indecipherable signatures that we can all agree are authentic.

Yet it doesn’t appear to happen on the questioned books at all. Instead we have J [stop]. erry [stop] Lee [stop] Lewis.

Wouldn’t you expect it to happen even more frequently when having to sign a stack of 700 books? As the hand grew tired, wouldn’t it drag even more?

To me, the hand not moving in the typical manner is a very significant tell. 

Regarding the notion of “proof,” what level of “proof” is required? There are countless accepted secretarial patterns that have been based purely on circumstantial evidence – some of it with even less than this matter. Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, Carter, Heston, Gleason and Alan Shepard are just a few that all had secretaries that were very skilled at imitating their boss’s signature. To my knowledge, none of these people went on the record and admitted it (some outright denied it) and no one caught them on camera. Rather, they were identified when sharp-eyed collectors started noticing something different about items that came back through the mail. Over time, patterns were established and the secretarials were identified. Same as this matter.

In my opinion, the secretarial styles mentioned above are MUCH more deceptive and much better imitations than the JLLs. It was very small, but consistent, nuances that helped identify these proxy signatures. With JLL, we have the opposite -- very small nuances are being used to try to defend signatures that, on the whole, look and feel different from known authentic examples.

Autograph authentication is not like a criminal trial – innocent until proven guilty. In my opinion, it is the opposite – possible fake until supported by verified exemplars. Where is the “proof” these are authentic? All I have seen to support the questioned style are other signatures that may have come through the mail as well, or using a one-in-a-hundred atypical trait to defend a large batch with a similar atypical trait. For example, this would be like finding a one-in-a-thousand authentic Mickey Mantle signature that had a narrow banana like loop and using it to argue the mass-produced banana Mantle fakes are authentic.

(As an aside, wouldn’t it be interesting if more than one proxy was at work here? It would certainly explain the confusing mixing and matching of signature styles and writing for the inscriptions.)

Finally, we have multiple independent sources coming to the same conclusion as highlighted by Ryan.

I like and respect Ballroom and consider him an important voice in the hobby, although I do not agree with his conclusions in this instance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Roberts on October 9, 2015 at 6:08pm

Great write up Steve.  I agree 100%!!

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on October 9, 2015 at 6:33pm

Looking at many of his signatures lately, they are really sloppy, but the books are all signed really neat ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on October 9, 2015 at 6:40pm

Ian, to me that it the real take away.  authentic JLL signatures, while possessing similar characteristics, also had many variations.  these books were cookie cutter signatures, by whoever ended up signing them, and I do not believe for one second that it was JLL.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by A.B. on October 10, 2015 at 12:50am

+1

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on October 9, 2015 at 6:35pm

well stated Steve.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on October 9, 2015 at 8:26pm

Thanks for joining in Steve. It's refreshing to hear from a professional authenticator who acts in a professional manner. What exactly do you mean by "J [stop]. erry"? Do you mean that the "J"s end abruptly and lack the flourish at the end?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 74
• 75
• 76
• 77
• 78
• …
• 126
• Next ›
• Page