Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eddy yesterday

I'm not quite certain about this one.  Do you have an image of the whole letter?  What sort of correspondence is it?  Date?  Context often helps.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen yesterday

I always find the shape of Cagney’s g to be confusing. Appreciate any insight.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy yesterday

I'm going to err on the side of caution.   I think this may have been signed for him.  It's close, though.  Maybe others will think differently.

This is on a photo about this same time in the mid/late 70s:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy yesterday

p.s. I don't know how much you are interested in Cagney, but just today we've started a discussion on our Classic Hollywood Autographs FB page about vintage Cagney signed publicity portraits that are said to have originated from the Estate of James Cagney complete with a rubber stamp of the Estate on each of their versos.  They've been selling in various venues and the signatures appear to perhaps not be from Cagney's hand.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allen yesterday

Thanks very much. I love collecting personal correspondence, but I hate the uncertainty that comes with it. Appreciate your taking the time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy 23 hours ago

You're welcome.  One of our dealer/collector members on the Autograph Hounds page made this point yesterday about Cagney's later in life signatures that might be helpful:

"I believe he stopped signing with the elongated tail on the “g” in the 1950’s. The later in age Cagney signatures had a shorter tail on the “g”".  

The "g" tail on the signed photo scan I included above is kind of in-between.  The TLS you posted is definitely an elongated "g" tail.  Perhaps the secretary (if it is one) was signing for him using the look of his earlier style.

• ▶ Reply