Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 13, 2017 at 1:26am

Hi James,

That's why my comment is limited to "From the study...". If the study is correct, then yes, PSA might be wrong in the case of the signature you showed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 13, 2017 at 12:51am

So why, Andreas, is your study sheet superior in this case to PSA/DNA? If you are correct, and I don't think you are, then PSA has authenticated MANY, MANY of these, and that would likely include John Reznikoff.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 13, 2017 at 12:57am

I sold a completely different JFK signature style on a pamphlet/program to an acquaintance of mine. He asked for your opinion on it, and you told him it was not authentic.

So I told him he should send it in to PSA/DNA, and he did. The JFK signed pamphlet/brochure which you told him was not authentic passed PSA/DNA with flying colors.

And sorry, Andreas but I'm confident you are wrong here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 13, 2017 at 1:22am

There are pretty much two things possible here. This was sent to this woman's father in 1955 from JFK. So obviously it's not a malicious forgery. It's either secretarial or authentic. And though I don't have Charles Hamilton's landmark book on JFK signatures in front of me, I believe Hamilton also identified this style as being authentic JFK...and again...so did PSA/DNA, so quite possibly John Reznikoff as well, although I don't know Reznikoff's current status with PSA/DNA. He may have been the one who has passed this style for PSA in the past.

PSA/DNA, just like ALL of us doesn't get them all right, but in this case I will side with PSA.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JMS1223 on January 13, 2017 at 4:07am

Very interesting. So if it turns out this signature is authentic then that means I foolishly gave away a good JFK signed letter to a friend for nothing. I can now see why someone thought it was secretarial and why maybe they were wrong. Now I wish I kept the letter but it was like seven years ago I gave it away. There is no way I can contact that person anymore.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andreas Wiemer on January 13, 2017 at 11:42am

James, it is my opinion ... years ago I also thought that this signature is real, but after my study the past years I am sure it is not real. Hamilton's book is excellent and the UACC study as well, but written years ago. You can see my findings in the study, I think that speaks for itself. But again, that's only my opinion, if you or PSA/DNA or someone else disagree - OK.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 13, 2017 at 11:51am

Andreas, I want to clarify something. I do greatly respect your opinion on JFK items. I know you're a leading authority in this area and deservedly so. My understanding has been that this style is authentic, and apparently PSA still does believe this. However, you may indeed be correct. I'm interested to learn more about this style. As Steve Cyrkin has said, as time goes on, more information comes to light on autographs making previous opinions less valid. Maybe that's the case here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paulrichards on August 30, 2018 at 4:16pm

Andreas: I wonder if you would be kind enough to answer the following three questions:

1. In your opinion would a secretary for JFK sign anyone’s work other than her own or JFK on a letter such as this?

2. Would you agree that the signature pattern being referred to in this thread is NOT that of Evelyn Lincoln?

3. If you saw JFK:el in the lower left corner on a letter with this signature pattern, what would you conclude?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Stone on January 14, 2017 at 6:07am

I would personally trust Andreas over PSA/DNA. Andreas has devoted an entire study to JFK and has looked at it closely. PSA/DNA looks at thousands upon thousands of signatures and JFK is not a specialty. People put way too much stock in PSA/DNA, not that they are bad, but way over rated for what they do in my opinion. A company getting paid millions of dollars to verify autographs that honestly, with a bit a hard work and research, the average person could do themselves. Lets be honest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 14, 2017 at 8:27pm

What you say is all true, James. Andreas personally sent me more Information regarding this Kennedy signature style. He was courteous, friendly, and professional. He politely explained how he too for a long time thought this was an authentic JFK style, but after much more research and examination, he now believes it is secretarial. He also said that PSA/DNA has authenticated, incorrectly he believes, lots and lots of this style and apparently still does, as do some auction houses, though RR apparently does not. But Andreas laid out his justification very well for why he believes this is a newly-uncovered secretarial style. Of course, he says it's possible it's authentic, but he does not believe it is. I understand his argument, and it makes sense. I'm still mulling things over a bit; however, while I consider myself above average on Kennedy signatures, I'm not near the expert on JFK autographs that Andreas is.

Thank you, Andreas, for gratiously explaining your opinion on this topic.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page