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
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.