Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 19, 2023 at 8:53am

No from me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug S on September 19, 2023 at 11:07am

Looks overbaked, especially for a reluctant signer.  Those postal products, like U.S. first day issues and cachets are terrific forgery magnets.  I have few!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on September 19, 2023 at 2:47pm

Atypical.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on September 20, 2023 at 4:58am

Valiant effort, but highly doubtful in my opinion. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 20, 2023 at 1:01pm

"...Valiant effort..."

I thought so too Steve.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 23, 2023 at 11:00am

From the SWAU Ford signature study:

And the OP:

This is why it was a "valiant effort" but looked way too early to me - the original is 1978-1985 or so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on September 23, 2023 at 11:37am

It's almost certain he would not sign in that style in 2017. But even without the anachronism, it's way too labored and you can practically see the "thinking" behind the signature. Valiant effort because most forgers don't attempt the fuller signature... it's a lot easier trying to replicate the modern abbreviated street sigs. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on September 23, 2023 at 11:54am

Do you know what I found to be most impressive?  The hook on the “T”.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 23, 2023 at 12:08pm

I never meant the OP was genuine, just that this example was used to make it. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on September 23, 2023 at 11:53am

Exactly, Eric.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 23, 2023 at 12:06pm

This copy, and the Edie from Ballroom in just 24 hours.The Ford study was posted in another thread - I recognized this as the original right away. People are copying a lot lately.

• ▶ Reply