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

Okay, what do you think of this one? Could she be true - in this sig at least?

Views: 553

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The portrait Eddy posted is apparently from a 1960 photo shoot.  Here is a 1970 PSA on a Breckinridge photo. I agree - the OP is one to avoid

Welcome back Eddy!

👍 Thanks!

Here is a 1973 check which is the latest you said the OP sig could be:

Eddy, the Nate Sanders one you posted is a great comparison. It sold me on the one in the OP!

Thanks for your help, guys. Good to have all of you here!

As an aside, here's an example of one that I would consider bad.  It's from the large "To Roy" collection that was being dropped on the market several years back.  I see some similarities in the "To Bob".

I suppose it's again the vivid style that makes you consider, right? Looking only at the letters I again can't see serious differences. It seems fluently and dynamically written as well.

Well, the "To Roy" is a forgery in my opinion.   I was enthused about that collection when it first started appearing as it was pretty well done in some cases and it fooled me at first.   

I wouldn't be surprised if one of these ("Bob" & "Roy") hadn't been modeled on the other when they were done.   

I'm sorry, I lost you Eddy, one of which "these"? The "To Roy" and which?

Ah, I see, the OP. Thank you Eddy.

"Roy" is not good.  I'm fairly confident in saying that.   

"Bob" (OP) looks better, but I'm not sold on it.   

I wonder if "Roy" isn't modeled on "Bob" (OP) ... or vice versa?   That's purely speculation on my part.

I guess the bottom line for me is that "Roy" is a forgery....

"Bob" (Op)  is better but I'm not convinced on it either.

Here's another in fiber tip.   Nice and strong inscription and signature, imo:

RSS

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

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