William Shatner - 1968 SP - opinions please

A friend asked me thoughts on this signed photograph.   I think it's good and looks to be spot on for late 60s pretty much.

 

Views: 812

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 9, 2024 at 4:55pm

Pic?

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 9, 2024 at 4:56pm

Or very faded... ;)

Permalink Reply by eddy on April 9, 2024 at 5:00pm

It's a strong vintage ink...it doesn't look faded to my eyes.   

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 9, 2024 at 5:27pm

I was joking - your post had no image until you added it.

Permalink Reply by eddy on April 9, 2024 at 4:58pm

Here's a signed document with Paramount also from 1968 for comparison:

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 9, 2024 at 5:01pm

This is typical 1968 William Shatner. Whatever the OP is that style was not employed in the 1960's.

Permalink Reply by eddy on April 9, 2024 at 5:06pm

I think the ST fan photo is the odd one out here, unfortunately.  I'd stick closer to what the legal contract signature from '68 looks like to feel comfortable with a recommendation.   I could be wrong but the ST fan photo looks odd.   Hard to even see it's actual ink characteristics as it's so blurry and low-def..

Lets see what those who know his vintage signature well might perhaps add...

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 9, 2024 at 5:25pm

These exemplars were collected by me many years ago when I was collecting my vintage Trek set. Some of these I owned. Click for larger images where available.


Here is a 1958 document:

His preprint from 1968:

And another:

And The Transformed Man 1968:

And a 1971 flyer:

Permalink Reply by eddy on April 9, 2024 at 5:34pm

The signature that you say is from 1956 is actually from 1958...but close enough. 

The '58 is also the same piece you've attributed as being from a 1968 contract....just in a close-up I think you'll see. 

 The late 1950s Shatner seems very different from what it had evolved to into by the late 1960s.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 9, 2024 at 5:43pm

Yes, it was a typo since corrected. Yes, I know those 2 were the same. Corrected already. The 1950's is odd. I should not have included it. I have removed it. I was working with thumbnails from an old hard drive and thought it was something else.  I stand firmly by the rest. The OP can not be from the 60's IMO - he is already melding the "l" with the "iam" with only one loose "l" before it.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 9, 2024 at 5:26pm

I think you can see a pattern in the first name as written 1958-1971.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 9, 2024 at 5:09pm

I have not seen his first name rendered in that manner until the mid 70's or later.

RSS

As an eBay Partner Network Affiliate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Get Our Newsletter

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2026   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service