Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on August 25, 2018 at 5:33pm

"...The thrill of the hunt is to separate the wheat from the chaff. You have my best wishes on that journey..."

+1

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on August 30, 2018 at 11:47am

Could I please see scans of each of the two letters, not just the signatures?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rfitzz on August 30, 2018 at 11:59am

Yes, Herman, certainly. I have attached the full letters.  They are also attached to the beginning of the discussion.  Thank you so much for your time and input.  It is greatly appreciated.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• January-20-1954.jpg, 808 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rfitzz on August 30, 2018 at 12:00pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on August 30, 2018 at 1:56pm

In my opinion, both the January 11, 1954 ,and the January 20, 1954, were signed for JFK by two different secretaries in Senator Kennedy's office even though it appears that both letters were dictated by JFK to the same secretary, "mb."

January 11, 1954. Two portions of JFK's signature are the major basis of my opinion.  The slant of the "J" is too far to the right. The slant is wrong. The first stroke of the "J" is down, the second stroke goes up (resembles a "v" continuing upwards to a tall second stroke). Concentrating on pre-presidential, authentic JFKs do not resemble the "J" on this letter.

I agree with Andreas Wiemer's conclusion that the "Kenne" is wrong. Carefully examining dozens of authentic JFKs, concentrating on pre-presidential, I find that they are all signed "Kenn" without the "e," then a space, then continuing to the end of the signature, unlike the January 11, 1954, "Kenne" signature.

The January 20, 1954, TLS is secretarial for many reasons. JFK just never signed this way.  Not even close.

These are basically form content letters concerning a constituent's desire to become a U.S. citizen. Someone in JFK's office forwarded your father's letter to the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service most probably preceded by a telephone call. The January 20th letter encloses the report from the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service which JFK had referred to on January 11th ("the appropriate authorities").

I am sorry to have to give you my negative opinion. I am glad that JFK helped your father.

--- Herman

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rfitzz on August 30, 2018 at 5:38pm

Herman, thank you so much for your time and response.  I understand regarding the Jan 20th letter, I didn't have much confidence in it for the reasons you stated.  I also understand your opinion regarding the Jan 11th letter.  However, Andreas' study regarding this style is relatively new information.  Did you, like Andreas', once feel that this style was authentic ?  Obviously, for many, many years this style has been "authenticated" and sold through reputable dealers and auctions. I know there are others who continue to disagree with Andreas' conclusions regarding this and I am sure the debate will continue.

In any event, I appreciate your time and assessment. The good news is: JFK did help my father and, as a result, he was able to live out the remainder of his life as an American Citizen.

Please, anyone else as well, feel free to elaborate on how and when this universally "authentic" accepted style has become "wrong".  I'm fascinated by this and look forward to hearing your thoughts.  Thanks, Rfitzz

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paulrichards on August 30, 2018 at 5:59pm

The question you are really asking indirectly is whether Charles Hamilton is no longer to be considered the top of the heap with JFK? The form of your Jan 11, 1954 letter is deemed authentic by Hamilton in his 2 volume American Autographs, vol 2 page 550 with a signature dated 1953. This includes the lean to the right pointed out by Herman Darvick. Similarly, the signature on the letter demonstrated by Barbara Simon on a 1955 letter is deemed secretarial by Andreas and yet is demonstrated as authentic on a June 25 m, 1954 letter as illustrated in one of Mr Hamilton’s book. I own that letter. The initials in the left lower corner of my letter are JFK:el—el being Evelyn Lincoln. I don’t think anyone would believe the signature on BArbara Simon’s letter would be one written by Evelyn Lincoln so that means that she wouldn’t have signed my letter either leading to only 3 possible conclusions: my letter was typed by Lincoln but signed by autopen; the letter was typed by Lincoln but signed by another secretary or the letter was typed by Lincoln and signed by Kennedy. Rather than get into a discussion as to who is the more expert expert I would like an explanation that explains these inconsistencies. Herman Darvick has a copy of my letter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on August 30, 2018 at 7:17pm

I am an autograph expert, not a "which secretary signed that letter" expert.

You seem to be ignoring my comment about the January 11, 1954, TLS: "The first stroke of the "J" is down, the second stroke goes up (resembles a "v" continuing upwards to a tall second stroke). Concentrating on pre-presidential, authentic JFKs do not resemble the "J" on this letter." You state that "The form of your Jan 11, 1954 letter is deemed authentic by Hamilton in his 2 volume American Autographs, vol 2 page 550 with a signature dated 1953." No it's not.  And where is the June 25, 1954 JFK letter "as illustrated in one of Mr Hamilton’s book." Which book?

Since YOU have Charles Hamilton's book, published 35 years ago in 1983, read Hamilton's statement on page 608: "The discovery that Susan Clough was signing official documents for Carter was made by Herman Darvick, author of the standard monograph, 'The Jimmy Carter Philographic Study.'"

Then there's the acknowledgment on page 626, in part, "The list of indebtedness would not be complete without mention of the encouragement and help given to me by ... Herman Darvick, a friend to all young collectors and in particular a friend to all those who seek to enhance our knowledge of philography, or the science of autograph collecting. Darvick's superb monograph,"The Jimmy Carter Philographic Study," provided me with valuable data. As the president of the Universal Autograph Collectors Club, Darvick has done a vast amount to promote the hobby of autograph collecting, and his help with this book was truly great."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paulrichards on September 1, 2018 at 4:10am

Herman: i’m Truly sorry if my posting asking questions regarding JFK secretaries offended you. I’m just trying to understand this topic better. Nobody, and certainly not me, is questioning your expertise or significant contributions to the hobby.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rfitzz on August 30, 2018 at 6:20pm

Yes, Paul, I agree. Although Hamilton's study has been the long standing de facto standard, I'm not opposed to new information, further study and, obviously, the passage of time to question his findings. I am not trying to ask the question about who is more "expert" but to simply open a dialogue of how a universally accepted style has suddenly become "wrong". Not to mention the flood of "authentic" signatures in this style in the marketplace. Have all the experts who authenticated these letters now reversed their feelings regarding these signature ? I don't know...
I also agree that there should be a logical explanation to the inconsistencies you have pointed out. I have not seen your letter but I would further assume you can narrow it down to two options eliminating the autopen potion. I have seen and held autopen signatures. In my experience (and I can only speak to the ones I've seen) autopens are fairly obvious showing no signs of "flow" of hand written material. I am, by no means, an expert in this area. I can only base that on the limited number of ones I have seen.
I would love to see your letter as well... thanks for your input.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paulrichards on August 30, 2018 at 6:50pm

Herman can certainly post a copy of my letter if he reads this. Again, I am not interested in playing off personalities against one another. I am also not averse to new information—but really what new information that is definitive has really surfaced? Except for Evelyn Lincoln, how many of these secretaries do we even know by name? Susan Clough did a very convincing secretarial of Jimmy Carter but quite honestly I have never really seen a secretarial signature of JFK that came close to the real thing—an example of this would be your Jan 20 letter which Herman discarded as secretarial for obvious reasons.

saying all of this another way: if there was so much additional information that came to fore since Charles Hamilton, we would not have spent the last several days and several pages of dialog going back and forth on what is and what isn’t genuine. At the end of the day I don’t think any of us including the “experts” know as much as we think we do.

if you send me your email I can forward you a copy of my letter

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rfitzz on August 30, 2018 at 8:22pm

Interesting that this popped up in the feed, yet I can't seem to find it in the thread. Ordinarily, I would ignore this but, I'm afraid, you've gotten the better of me this time and I feel the need to address this.  First, I wrote a response to a very nice piece written by Rich, perhaps you can read it, it may enlighten you:

https://live.autographmagazine.com/profiles/blogs/common-sense-on-a...

Secondly, I didn't realize I "blasted" on the scene. I joined and participated in discussions that interested me.  For the record, I have posted three things. 1. JFK letters which I have explained are very personal to me.  2. Authentic Beatles photo that I own and no one disputes the authenticity of... 3 Elvis signed photo that I purchased 17 yrs ago and was looking for authenticity opinions.  I don't know how that has turned into "so many questionable autographs" and, as I've explained before, I am not "fighting to the death regarding authenticity" but am looking to learn more, share more, collect more, educate myself and, HAVE FUN!

Again, I have no idea what I have done to you to warrant these kinds of responses from you but, as I've said before, if you do not have anything intelligent or constructive to add to my discussions, please refrain from commenting.  Thank you

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page