Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 029r4yc06b4rr on November 21, 2011 at 3:22pm

Ooooow, busted! You know his study on Hendrix was actually pretty informative and seemed to make sense with valid points. I thought i might actually even use it in the future. But maybe not. Or maybe he was just trying to convince someone here that is highly thought of to say yeah it was real, and then trash them all over ANL. And that seems like the more logical reason. Its a shame that people will go that far to smear others names. What sucks is he will probably be back soon under another name with another autograph, lets hope hes not dumb enough to do hendrix again though. lol

Chris

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on November 21, 2011 at 3:35pm

Chris,

Have you really sat down and read the study?  I mean really read it.  As far as I could tell (as I didn't put a lot of time looking at the signatures) the exemplars were authentic but his writing was so "all over the place" that it is almost impossible to make sense of it.  So much time was spent drawing lines and what not that the whole study is mind wracking.  In one part he says Hendrix did this and then in another he says Hendrix did that; all the while canceling out his prior statement.  I know what he was trying to say as I know Hendrix very, very well but the average reader would have one heck of a time figuring out what he is saying.  It's very much the way he writes when he blogs; it usually doesn't make any sense.  Using big words does not make you smart.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on November 27, 2011 at 8:51pm

The only issue I have with the study is that it doesn't appear to show a "looped x" like the one pictured above. It says:

The “Hendrix” half of his signature often displays varied characteristics. The “H”, “d”, and “x” are the most consistent, while the “en”, and “ri” often are written 2 or more differing ways.

However, this "looped x" looks quite different from those included in the study.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 27, 2011 at 9:15pm

I agree, Ballroom. Although studies rarely have examples of all variations--that's too much to expect. Grant's Hendrix study is pretty good, but I think it, like every study, needs examples of forgeries to compare with.

I downloaded the image below from Grant's study the other day and I think that the Hendrix I bordered in red may have a looped "x" like the one above. I think they're in the same hand, but the "J" is looped instead of crossed. And though all we can see is part of the first "i"'s dot, it's the only one as circular as the dots on Jimi above.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 27, 2011 at 9:25pm

Here's a side-by-side comparison:

If the full signature on pink has similar characteristics to the one on green paper, then I think both are forgeries. It would be interesting to see it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on November 27, 2011 at 9:57pm

I think I've seen that one before, but don't recall if it also had the looped "x." It would indeed be interesting to see the rest of it. That's a good point about it being difficult to include all of the variations. However, I got the impression that the Van Derhoven has a number of examples of the looped "x", enough that it would be important to show that the "x" isn't as consistent as it appears to be based on the study.    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 27, 2011 at 10:32pm

The provenance of the ones with the looped "x" will matter, of course. Authentication knowledge is a work in progress, advancing all the time. The same holds for the expertise of the person authenticating the item--they should get better and better every year as they learn from their mistakes. 

You need to be active in the field; looking at material, talking to other collectors and professionals, discussing pieces, arguing about them. You can't just say Sotheby's sold it in 1993 and 1998, and R&R sold it in 2003, and put it in your genuine stack for that sales history alone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 27, 2011 at 10:59pm

This is what I don't like on the Hendrix at top. Any one thing may be fine, but having so many concerns on one signature is too much:

1. The entire signature slants to the right, but most if not all I've seen swing or slant towards the left.
2. The dots over the "i"'s
3. The "i"'s of Jimi are usually fairly straight or slightly concave to the left. Both of the first "i"'s on these are almost equally convex to the left.
4. The "e" of Hendrix is usually tucked closer or into the H, and generally more horizontal than vertical. They come both ways, but compare Grant's other examples to this one.
5. The loop in the "x"...don't recall seeing that elsewhere in accepted genuine ones.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 27, 2011 at 11:39pm

I corrected a couple typos in #4...should make sense now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on November 28, 2011 at 8:05am

Since I was never asked about this and I see there is quite a stir going on I thought I would would put in my 2 cents worth about what I see.  Using Grant's line technique I will show you that Steve is correct when stating that this Hendrix signature leans extremely to the right and not to the left like most known and agreed authentic signatures.

You will notice here that I have drawn a line under the first and last name to show what plane this was signed along.  He could have signed this on someones arm, leg or even standing on his head but this will show the imaginary line he wrote along.  You will notice that EVERY letter leans extremely to the right.  Please look at a page from Grant's own study that shows a complete pattern of him signing with the letters leaning to the left.  Please look at the imaginary line he is signing on under the letters.  That will give you the straight edge he is signing along thus showing the letters (except for the "x" leaning to the left.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 28, 2011 at 11:13pm

Thanks, Roger...that shows the right slant very clearly. There are more points that concern me than I pointed up above; for instance "rix" is usually much shorter. But something else that really stands out is the paraph under Hendrix.

Have you ever seen Hendrix underline his name, let alone draw a paraph? I haven't studied Hendrix like you have, but I don't recall seeing either. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on November 29, 2011 at 5:36am

Steve,

I looked through roughly 100 signatures that I have quick access to and have not seen one where he used a paraph under his signature.  I did find one where he wrote EXPERIENCE under his name and then put a paraph under that but it is nothing like the one shown here. 

Regarding the "rix" it appears to me that the "x" is underneath the signature line by the whole height of a letter.  I have never seen that before either that I can recall. 

One other thing that really bothers me is in every signature I looked at that when he "stacked" his signature the word "Jimi" is the same length as the "Hend" in Hendrix.  On this one if you measure it, Jimi is the same length as Hendrix.  That is not Hendrix trait that I have seen.  I'm not saying he couldn't have ever done it; but it is not something I saw today or can recall from memory. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page