Just spotted these two MMs on eBay.

Both are authenicated but in both cases the Marilyn looks a bit odd. I'd say genuine all the same - others agree?

If I had $15k hanging around doing nothing I'd be tempted by this one - very nice image and context. I'm more convinced of this one, partly due to the "To" in the inscription.

I attach jpgs for enlargement purposes

Views: 367

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'd say no good on both...

I've seen some pretty decent fakes on her Sig for sure! I wonder what others will say about this? How did you know it's a jsa? Reverse image search? I should really do that so I can investigate this stuff further...

Oh you prolly went to ebay duh sorry...

+1. I don't like either one. That stated, MMs signature does morph slightly, almost on a yearly basis, starting early on in her career, and accelerating a bit more around 1953, but these Ms are as troubling to me as "banana Ms" are on Mantle signatures to Chris and Terrier.

I've been looking for a MM sig for myself lately and I hate to go against a JSA cert, but neither of these look right to me.

The first M in the 1st photo and both M's in the 2nd photo look off. I can't say I've seen her sign the M's as broken strokes. Her M's are usually a single stroke with stylish loops. That's just for starters. I'm not saying these are Fake, but I am saying they make me wonder.

She fetches big money and is very saught after, so I would want several COA's and a bunch of eyes before I purchased her. 

Here's a MM I would trust

+1 on every observation. Especially this on:

"The first M in the 1st photo and both M's in the 2nd photo look off. I can't say I've seen her sign the M's as broken strokes."

Her vortices-like Ms are typically unbroken from the early 50s, right up to the end.

Well the card went for $2,350. I'm not sure what that tells us but it is probably a bit on the low side so maybe others had their doubts too.

The photo is still listed at 15 grand. I still think that one is real, if nothing else due to the way the inscription is written. 

I do place some attention on prices realized. 

Indeed

Marilyn should easily fetch near double that

There's one on RR auctions that is already at a $1700+ and it just opened yesterday.

This one is approved by Beckett and also shows an unconnected M, which is very unusual to see.

click to enlarge

Sometimes the M's appear to be separate strokes but she has a very light hand.

If the M has deliberate unconnected strokes, I would be very hesitant and would want a mountain of provenance.

Hoodcat53 wrote: "If the M has deliberate unconnected strokes, I would be very hesitant and would want a mountain of provenance".

This!

I would say that the card in the original post and the RR example are quite different. Strangely, the in-person card looks less rushed than the formal letter.

yyyyyyyyyyy

The main differences seem to be in the slant and looseness of the signatures, the "lyn" of Marilyn and the uniformity in size of the letters in Monroe.

To be honest, even the RR example has its oddities too, the main one being the "lyn" that looks like "lan". The ink blobs in the "i" and the second "M" are also in odd places. On balance though I'd say real.

I'm not sure that breaks in the "Ms"is necesarily so critical but I'd like to look at my own examples again before sticking my neck out on that one.   

Another question that came to my mind is why MM signed "Miller" on some occasions and not others. She was married to Arthur at the time the RR letter was signed but has not used the Miller. This may be because it was a formal document but I have an in-person MM signed in October 1956 that also has no Miller even though she had been married to Arthur for several months by then. I'll try to post an image of mine over the next few days.

I may start a separate thread on the "Miller" and "M breaks" issues.

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2009-2017   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Community Manager.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service