We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Marilyn Monroe Signature Authentic?
I would love members opinions as to
the authenticity of these signed Marilyn
Monroe picture?
- Attachments: No photo uploads here
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on
-
GoodCat wrote:"To Woody
Take it easy man
There's no need for that kind of aggressive behavior here towards a very upstanding member".Huh?
??????????????????? When did I do that? ??????????????????????
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
Pauline,
I think you found the signed photo that the one in the OP was modeled after. Compare the autograph in green to it.
-
Permalink Reply by Pauline Berry on
-
I think you are right about that one. It is very similar, the forged signature gets worse every time I look at it.
The pen is fading too, on both of these. And another fading one here too. These are over 60 years old now.
-
-
Here is an interesting one. I was looking for what I thought was a bad example of another River of No Return signed photo which was faked. I haven't looked at this for years and dismissed it as fake so long ago, but that was before I did a lot more study.
I realize now, it is likely real (IMO), but what do you all think?
The reason why I thought it was fake was because of the angle it's written across the photo and the fairly flat baseline of the two parts of the name, more like she would sign on a cheque, not a photo, so I still have a teeny bit of doubt . . . but I think it's real if it isn't some kind of tracing or transference.
The lyn is like a previous 1950 style signing, with just a small lift under those three letters rather than the "fin". So that's another thing, that she signed like it was 1950 in 1953 when this photo came into existence. But look at that pointy M on Monroe. Gee she was changeable.
I have no idea of scale either. This might be a very small (clearly a real old photo), with it's corrugated edges, , which might explain the large signature. But she did sign very large sometimes . . .
What are your thoughts Steve, Woody & Shawn? (or anyone)
Another hesitation for me is that the feeling of the inscription is that it was signed not at the same time as the signature. The angle/direction is slightly different to the name. It's an awkward one. Also, who is the Love and Kisses to? that's odd too.
-
Permalink Reply by goodcat on
-
That is a head scratcher example Pauline
I can see why it gives you a bit of trouble.
I'm on the fence and will need more time to look at it.
But tonight my Packers play, so no time for distractions haha
I'll pm you about this one
-
-
The photo has the proportions of a 3.5x5 or a 4x6 (width 2/3 length), but they didn't have 4x6 photo paper in the 1950s as far as I know.
I don't recall seeing genuinely signed small publicity photos. They were sent out by the studio fan mail departments. Do you know if 20th Century Fox sent out secretarial Monroes?
-
-
Hi Steve
Yes Fox sent out many secretarials, but who knows about the other studios. This has MGM on the bottom, which curiously is the same source of the bad signature, as per the supplied anecdote. An MGM employee got it. Marilyn only worked for MGM for Some Like It Hot I think? River of No Return was definitely a 20th Century Fox film.
This doesn't look at all like secretarial signed photos as they are all big ones. I don't mean this is a secretarial though. It isn't any of the secretaries, it most closely resembles her own hand, but is just super odd.
So it's fake or real. I am on the fence too. Maybe Woody can bust this one. I would love to know what he thinks.
-
-
Let's go back to that 1952 check:
As you already noted, the signature above probably most closely represents this period.
So the first question I have is about the subject matter of that MM/guitar photo. Now to me, the photo looks like it could have been shot ca. 1956. Around the time of the movie, Bus Stop. First off, am I off on her approx. age in this photo?
-
-
1954 film release filmed in Canada in 1954 and she also wrote an inscription to her stand-in in this photo below, (which I think and assume is real as she is photographed to the signee).
The writing is similar-ish to my photo query, but it has the "fin". Also it's all much pointier, no soft loops at all.
So being on a RONR photo from 1954 precludes it being signed any earlier. This is a mystery because the fin came into play before that.
I am leaning back towards that other one being a fake actually.
Another thing is could it be a colour reproduction of an actual signing? something generic she wrote on, which is why the Love and Kisses isn't to anyone. A collectible card in a series, as there is a number on it. It has both MGM and 20th Century Fox on the bottom of the photo and seems to be in Austrian(?) in part.
-
-
If we don't focus on the "fin" and instead hone in on the structure and angles of the Ms, then the one with the overlay is likely anachronistic (signed with an earlier trait, on a later medium).
And like you perceived, the almost straight up and down "Love and Kisses" does not go together with the typical 45 to 60 degree slant Ms, as well as the inscription and the name seemingly from two different styles of different periods!
A lot of the right notes, but falls flat as a total composition. Not to mention, a major issue of this falling flat, IMO, is the "onroe" that follows that proper "M". It just doesn't go. Not as written. Especially the "nro". With that "M"? No!
-
-
I didn't notice the MGM on the card! I looked up the movie and it said Fox.
-
-
Yes, it's a Fox film. I don't know why MGM is on the card as well.
The more I look at that signature, the worse it gets, but once again, it's got some good things about it too. Is it some kind of weird overlay they printed onto the photo?
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
