Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mikex on January 31, 2022 at 7:09am

Fraser's had a good reputation before they went bust. Does it come with one of their COAs?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mafalda Osborne on January 31, 2022 at 7:12am

No I am afraid the owner (a friend of mine) does not have a COA for this. Not sure if he was given one when he bought the autograph.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mikex on January 31, 2022 at 9:11am

I would stay away in that case. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KaiMi on January 31, 2022 at 7:15am

No from me. Not even close.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 31, 2022 at 11:17am

No from me. This article is 1953 and that is in no way her signature at that time or any or other. It got spikier towards 1960 but this is llike a...cactus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pauline Berry on January 31, 2022 at 12:59pm

Thanks Eric, for the heads up

I probably haven't spent enough time on this, is it a 1953 article? I can't find the date, but I'm sure you're right.

Having said that, the "Marilyn" is very good, but the "Monroe" very malformed, yet hits 8 out of 10 for me despite it's horror. Not a desirable autograph, it would likely fail the Beckett's test.

But I would say likely genuine. The overall shape, the length of letters and the awful ending, still there's a tiny o formed at the end of the r before the s meant to be o.

The worst thing is the first "o" in Monroe I've never seen it not joined. Horrible autograph, but it could be real, 1958 to 1962 probably. And yet the article is 1953? that makes it impossible really.

That's my 5 cents worth anyway. It's a tough one though.

I shall think longer on this, but the "Marilyn" is incredibly good and very difficult to fake written at this speed. It's all there. The one above, I always thought genuine. It's from "The Misfits" time, pretty horrible. Below 1962, written on a tile 1962, a tiny o at the end . . . some elements of the auto in question. I don't know, it's got some bad things, yet I wouldn't fully dismiss it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 31, 2022 at 1:03pm

The way I read it How to Marry a Millionaire is her latest work. The last sentence is current, not past.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KaiMi on January 31, 2022 at 1:20pm

There is a sentence in the article that "her fans hope that her second marriage to Joe DiMaggio will be the real thing". So the article must be from 1954, when they married and divorced. But maybe the sig is later.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 31, 2022 at 3:05pm

Very good work KaiMi, I missed that. So either a later sig or a forgery.

• ▶ Reply