We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Autograph studies, can anyone do them without ever having the exemplars in front of them?

I have seen many autograph studies including the ones I have done myself.  Most of the ones I give kudos to are ones from authenticators that I know have actually held the autographs in front of them and drawn a conclusion.  There was one done recently from some unknown that did a study on Jimi Hendrix that has only had a couple of Hendrix autographs that he owned.  Most of the ones that he used in the study were from ones that were on the internet or catalogs yet he never viewed them in person.  A small address book with many signed pages that I authenticated for Heritage Auctions that sold @ Christies awhile ago is one that comes to mind with little thought.  How could someone like Grant Van Der Sleet or better known as "The Vanderhoven" make such a lengthy study of autographs he never saw in person?  How could he make such claims that he is the end all of Hendrix autographs yet he has rarely seen these rare morsels in front of him.  How could he make such claims having never examined the ink, the smell, the texture of the paper?  Is he really some God that can make such statements through a computer screen or a catalog?  I know I have been called out and sued for supposedly doing the same thing.  Is he held to a higher level then a known handwriting expert?  Other goofs like Steve Koschall have tried to do the same. Any thoughts?

Views: 799

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gordon O'Steen on November 27, 2011 at 11:39am

I use your site all the time as a tool for exemplars.  Especially since I got burned with the 3 that I posted on another thread recently.  But I still can't say that I feel that confident in making the decision anymore.  The Clapton that I posted is ridiculously similar to an exemplar that you posted in your Eric Clapton study on AAT.  But Steve as well as others, including myself, think it is a forgery.  So, to say that I am quite hesitant now on any study, regardless of who, is an understatement.  But you are correct in the fact that a proper study cannot be done unless you have the auto/s in front of you.

And, I agree with Mike and Cee Gee.  Don't let that other stuff get to you.  All of us on this site are not always going to see eye to eye.  Quite frankly, that is the beauty of it.  But the majority of us respect each and every person's opinion, good or bad.  Just keep doing what you are doing.

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on November 27, 2011 at 2:47pm

Well said.

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on November 28, 2011 at 5:45pm

The Hendrix study alone should prove that not just anyone (who has never seen 100's of Hendrix autographs in person) should write a study on that person.  You can't "will" an autograph to be authentic.  You can't close your eyes and twinkle your nose and hope that an autograph will be authentic.  You have to back it up with facts, not BS.

In a study you can't post tidbits of an autographs to use as comparisons.  The full autograph needs to be shown to prove that the autograph that is used as an exemplar is indeed authentic.  Forgers are great at doing one part or another of an autograph nearly perfect; but it's the whole autograph that tells the true story.  In the Hendrix study by Grant Vander Streek from NoCal he uses many fragments of autographs to try to prove a point on authenticity when in fact he should be showing the full autograph so at least the general public has something to show that the autograph displayed is indeed authentic. If you read any of my autograph studies I show the full autograph so there is no doubt to its authenticity.  This is the common error of wannabe authenticators doing studies.  This study would be thrown out of court in a second as there is no proof whether the signatures in the study are authentic or not.  I would love to hear some wannabe authenticator say "no but your honor the rest of the signature is in fact authentic, I promise, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye".  That one always works...in make believe land.

Permalink Reply by DB on November 28, 2011 at 9:30pm

aha, so this is where the new battleground is...   and i have been missing all the fun.  I for one feel it is always a good thing to push the envelope but also know when to say when.  we can disagree but we don't have to be disagreeable and the latter part is where it has gotten out of hand way to often.  I for one thought the "vanderhoven" made excellent points on Gleason and a number of others until like a little crybaby he deletes his posts.   However, when disagreements end up escalating into personal attacks a moderator needs to act and "being banished" imho is not a solution.  I long ago, and others have agreed, that we need a different type of impartial moderator.  the kind who simply delete comments and repost the "rules".  Of course, I'm reminded of Sundance - there are no rules.. lol.

would seem to me that I'd opt to go with Epperson's opinion more often than not on music.  will he may make an error at times (his ratio is much better than a great many even according to many of his critics) - yes he will and he is not bashful about saying so when it occurs.  Noone is perfect.  It's how they "man up" that counts.

as far as this silly debate on Hendrix wages on it reminds me of a tune;

This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...

when disagreements start getting personal then there cannot be any winners and whatever legit argument was trying to be surfaced is lost as we collectors just change the channel.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service