Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on March 13, 2017 at 9:31pm

This example has a lot of positive points,however the SH bothers me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on March 14, 2017 at 5:28am

I noticed that too. Outside of that it looks great.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on March 14, 2017 at 7:49am

Joe, I can't tell if the s is connected to the h? It almost appears like the s connects to the a and the 8 (h) is added seperately which would be atypical. I agree with you, it does look good outside of that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on March 14, 2017 at 8:01am

The "S" seems to be touching the "a" but does not one continuous stoke. The "h" is separate although it seems he signed the "S", then the "h", and then the "aw". This may be because of it being signed in person. Not sure although I think this signature is more likely to be genuine than not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on March 14, 2017 at 8:31am

Ok, I see what your saying. He stops after the s then makes the h and picks up with the a. This makes the most sense but is still atypical. I think it could be a good one from Quint (the shark hunter)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on March 14, 2017 at 8:41am

You guys are funny. It is all one continuous signature formed correctly, the base of the S runs to the top of the h, then the h finishes by swooping into the a, just like a real Shaw, but this one was done by an excellent forger. They missed a few important points, but otherwise it is easily one of the best fakes I have seen. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on March 14, 2017 at 8:44am

Thanks, Pete. That's helps a bunch. Had me fooled.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on March 14, 2017 at 10:04am

Pete, thanks for your point. I just don't see the continuous, smooth flow formed correctly-not the SHA anyway. In my opinion the rest of the signature is very close to authentic examples.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on March 14, 2017 at 10:30am

The scan is by no means clean and clear, but this is what I see, knowing Shaw's signature. The adjustment and line tracing is kind of crude, but I am not any kind of photoshop guy.

 

  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on March 14, 2017 at 11:30am

Pete, I have no doubt you are accurate in your opinion on the Shaw. But, I see, what appears to be an exaggerated "e" following the "t". Then an "8" shape. Then the "aw" with the the "exaggerated e" touching the "a". The bottom of the "S" does follow the top loop in on continuous pattern. Could be my eyes but appears to be 3 distinct breaks in the last name.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on March 14, 2017 at 11:48am

Joe, I agree with you and that's the reason why you and I were in this discussion in the first place-we both noticed something atypical. It just doesn't look right in the area of the SHA.

Permalink Reply by Robert Chase on March 14, 2017 at 12:00pm

Pete, I agree that the scan is not the best-it gets fuzzy when I enlarge it. With that said I can't see all the fine details. I can see the SHA and it looks off-we were not trying to be funny and saw a real issue there. I think it's a good point.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page