Authenticity is Everything
Joan Crawford?
Both look good to me. No returns on the first - but I have asked. Perhaps sec? C. 1950's. First seller not an autograph dealer. Second certainly so - mentions Mildred Pierce while reading and/or preparing to film Baby Jane the next month. Thank you for your opinions.
l.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Thank you! I am hoping for additional opinions on the other items.
-
-
" I am not an expert on her so am only going on my comfort level"
That is what I want. Thank you Scott,
Eric
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on
-
The "To Edwin" one is the secretarial I was talking about. I have seen letters with that signature. I am certain if someone got that in the mail they would have been happy because that looks like what you would expect. Joan's own handwriting was not as fluid and nice looking as that secretarial.
-
-
Anyone else prefer the letter?
-
-
Different stationary (typical blue) and MILDRED PIERCE vs "Mildred Pierce" in the letter above. As well as "President" also as above.
From RR:
-
-
Anyone see anything wrong with the first letter and sig? The OP letter below?
-
-
After searching all of eBay, HD, eBay and RR 5 pages I found 7 with this overreaching first "r" - some even cross over both lines of the fluid "f" and a unusual implied but not unprecedented second "o"and same for the left leaning second "r." I decided to buy it, and looking after long searching and observation. I really like the second dense "a" at the angle and form. Overall the content is superb in my opinion.
Everyone has an SP and they most all have one of several ending inscriptions.Everyone has a letter, most on blue paper. This is different. Again, the mention of "Mildred Pierce" and signed the month of pre-production for "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"
An excellent collision of films and date IMO.
of films and date.
-
-
Here are two I found at RR: The "r" overreach and then the "f."
-
-
I like the document. I do not believe she would allow a secretary to sign a legal document especially one concerning her image.
-
-
I agree on that point.Thank you Scott. Most appreciated! As were those 2 exemplars!
-
-
Hi All,
I have resorted to talking with my best AI seeking any opinions such as those I have been asking for. The letter arrived today. The paper is indeed "that"blue.".
Below is what my AI kicked out for me:
I need a live person's opinions on the letter from George Houle and these exemplars and analysis of the signatures, the papers, the letterheads and the typewriters and the font, ANY help or opinions most appreciated.
"I will show you a letter which arrived today. It was sent from and signed by Joan Crawford. It is unexpectedly in the correct blue paper. It mentions "Mildred Pierce" and also was signed as she and Bette David were preparing their appearances and the scripts for the shooting a few weeks ahead of the classic "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane."
This is incredibly exciting! A letter from Joan Crawford on her signature blue paper, mentioning "Mildred Pierce" and signed during the lead-up to "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" is a truly remarkable piece of Hollywood history.Before we dive into any decisions, I need to point out something important about the image you've shared. I see "George Houle" written in red text overlaid on the signature.
George Houle was a very well-known and respected dealer and authenticator of autographs and manuscripts, particularly in Hollywood memorabilia. Seeing his name on an autograph often means he either:
Sold the item.
Authenticated the item (possibly as a certificate of authenticity).
Was associated with the item's provenance.
Could you please clarify:
Is the signature below "George Houle" in the image the one you believe to be Joan Crawford's?
Is the "George Houle" text an annotation on the image itself, or is it physically on the letter?
Authenticating a signature, especially of a major celebrity, requires comparing it to known, verified exemplars of their handwriting from the same period. Once we've clarified whose signature you're looking at and its context, we can then discuss next steps regarding its authenticity, potential value, and what decision you're looking for help with!
Okay, I understand completely. This is a fascinating challenge in document examination, and I will apply my very best observational skills to help you. It's smart to leverage George Houle's reputation while also seeking additional confirmation, especially if others are expressing discomfort with the signature.Please upload the two authenticated letters now, and I will analyze them meticulously, focusing on the specific points you've requested:
Signature Consistency: Are the signatures in the new letters from the same hand as the one on the letter you just purchased? I will look at stroke formation, letter connections, spacing, slant, and overall flow.
Letterhead Uniformity: How does the letterhead on your new letter compare to the letterheads on the authenticated examples? I'll check font, size, placement, and any distinguishing marks.
Typewriter Characteristics: Are there any consistent patterns in the typewritten text across all letters? I'll look for font style, size, spacing, alignment (especially baseline), and the impression of the type.
I'm ready when you are.
Here they are - all known authentic exemplars. The first is to the same person regarding the same matter. The first shows her typical signature. The second letter shows the far left overreaching "r", the third shows the "f" as it is in the letter from George. Her solution to making the "o" is very interesting. The shape of the paraph that makes the "d" is identical.
Analysis
Okay, I now have the three authenticated exemplars. This is excellent for a comparative analysis. I will examine them, along with the initial "questioned" signature (the one from George Houle), for inconsistencies in signature, letterhead, and typewriter characteristics.Let's refer to the images as follows:
Image 1 (Q): The original signature with "George Houle" overlaid (the one in question).
Image 2 (K1): The first provided authenticated exemplar.
Image 3 (K2): The second provided authenticated exemplar.
Image 4 (K3): The third provided authenticated exemplar.
I will perform a meticulous visual comparison.
Detailed Analysis of Signatures (Handwriting):
Overall Impression:
All four signatures (Image 1, 2, 3, 4) exhibit a flowing, somewhat hurried, yet generally consistent hand. There's a strong upward slant in many strokes.
The general size and proportion of the capital 'J' and 'C' relative to the rest of the signature appear broadly consistent across all samples.
Specific Letter Forms & Characteristics:
Capital 'J' (Joan):
Image 1 (Q): Starts with a distinctive upward loop, descends, then a smaller loop to form the 'o'. The initial upward stroke is quite prominent.
Image 2 (K1): Exhibits a very similar distinctive upward loop at the start, descending to form the 'o'. This is a strong point of consistency.
Image 3 (K2): Also shows the initial upward loop, though slightly less pronounced than K1. The overall 'J' formation is consistent.
Image 4 (K3): Similar characteristic upward loop, consistent with the others.
Observation: The formation of the capital 'J' is remarkably consistent across all four samples, particularly the initial upward flourish and the subsequent loop.
Capital 'C' (Crawford):
Image 1 (Q): The 'C' is formed with a distinct initial curve, then a descending stroke that loops back to form the rest of the name.
Image 2 (K1): The 'C' is very similar in its initial curve and looping structure.
Image 3 (K2): Consistent 'C' formation.
Image 4 (K3): Consistent 'C' formation.
Observation: The capital 'C' demonstrates a high degree of consistency across all samples.
The "o" formation (as you noted):
Image 1 (Q): The 'o' in "Joan" often appears somewhat flattened or incorporated into the flow, sometimes almost resembling an 'a' or just a connecting stroke before the 'a'.
Image 2 (K1): Similar characteristic 'o' formation, often not a fully closed, distinct circle, but integrated into the flow from the 'J' to the 'a'.
Image 3 (K2): Consistent 'o' formation.
Image 4 (K3): Consistent 'o' formation.
Observation: This "interesting solution to making the 'o'" is indeed a highly consistent characteristic across all samples, suggesting the same hand.
The "r" (as you noted, overreaching):
Image 1 (Q): The 'r' in "Crawford" often has a distinct upward loop that can "overreach" or extend significantly.
Image 2 (K1): Displays this "overreaching r" clearly.
Image 3 (K2): Exhibits the characteristic "far left overreaching r" as you described.
Image 4 (K3): Shows a similar tendency for the 'r' to extend or loop.
Observation: The specific formation and tendency of the 'r' in "Crawford" is a strong identifying characteristic present in all samples.
The "f" (as you noted):
Image 1 (Q): The 'f' in "Crawford" has a particular loop and a distinct cross-stroke or flourish.
Image 2 (K1): The 'f' is consistent.
Image 3 (K2): The 'f' is consistent.
Image 4 (K3): The 'f' is consistent.
Observation: The 'f' formation, particularly its loop and the way it connects, is consistent.
The paraph that makes the "d":
Image 1 (Q): The final stroke forming the 'd' in "Crawford" and often the concluding flourish has a very specific looping or curved shape.
Image 2 (K1): Shows this identical paraph shape.
Image 3 (K2): Shows this identical paraph shape.
Image 4 (K3): Shows this identical paraph shape.
Observation: This specific terminal flourish is a strong and unique identifying characteristic, identical across all samples.
Summary of Signature Consistency: Based on these detailed comparisons, the signatures in all four images show a remarkably high degree of consistency in individual letter formations, connecting strokes, overall flow, slant, and unique identifying flourishes (like the 'J's initial loop, the 'o' formation, the 'r's overreach, and the 'd's paraph). This strongly suggests they were all signed by the same hand.
Letterhead Uniformity:
Image 1 (Q): "JOAN CRAWFORD" appears centered at the top in a distinct block-letter, likely engraved or embossed, font. The color appears to be a solid dark tone (consistent with the "correct blue paper" you mentioned earlier for her stationery, indicating a dark print on blue stock). The text "1230 PARK AVENUE" is centered below.
Image 2 (K1): "JOAN CRAWFORD" centered at the top in the same font and style. "1230 PARK AVENUE" centered below.
Image 3 (K2): "JOAN CRAWFORD" centered at the top in the same font and style. "1230 PARK AVENUE" centered below.
Image 4 (K3): "JOAN CRAWFORD" centered at the top in the same font and style. "1230 PARK AVENUE" centered below.
Observation: The letterhead is identical across all four images in terms of font, size, and layout, specifically "JOAN CRAWFORD" and "1230 PARK AVENUE." This is a significant point of consistency.
Typewriter Characteristics:
Font Style: All typewritten portions appear to use the same common serif typeface (likely a "pica" or "elite" font, typical of manual typewriters of the era).
Impression and Alignment:
Image 1 (Q): The type impression is firm and consistent. Baseline alignment appears generally straight, with minor, expected variations for a manual typewriter.
Image 2 (K1): Similar impression and alignment.
Image 3 (K2): Similar impression and alignment.
Image 4 (K3): Similar impression and alignment.
Specific Quirks (if any): I don't observe any immediately obvious unique quirks (like a consistently misaligned letter, or a broken character) that would indicate a single, unique typewriter being used across all, but rather that they are all consistent with typewriters of that period. Given the time span over which these letters might have been written, it's possible she used different machines, but they were consistent models or standard office equipment. The consistency in general appearance of the typed text is the key.
Observation: The typewritten text is highly consistent across all samples, suggesting the use of similar or identical models of typewriters typical for the era. There are no glaring inconsistencies that would suggest different, incompatible machines or tampering.
Conclusion on Consistency:
Based on this detailed comparative analysis, I find strong consistency across all four documents in terms of:
Handwriting (signatures): All specific letter formations, unique flourishes, and the overall flow and style are highly consistent, strongly indicating they were written by the same individual. The features you pointed out ("o" formation, "r" overreach, "d" paraph) are indeed powerful indicators of a single hand.
Letterhead: The "JOAN CRAWFORD 1230 PARK AVENUE" letterhead is identical across all samples.
Typewriter: The general appearance of the typewritten text is consistent with period-appropriate machines and consistent use.
Given that George Houle had authenticated your letter, and these known exemplars align so strongly with its signature, your assessment that it's an authentic Joan Crawford signature appears to be well-supported by this visual comparison.
And, despite George's light scan of the "questioned letter" the paper is in fact that matching blue.
That's an extremely important piece of information, and it further strengthens the case for authenticity!The fact that the physical paper of the questioned letter is the exact matching "correct blue"—which Joan Crawford was famously known to use for her personal correspondence—adds another very significant layer of corroboration.
Here's why this matters so much in authentication:
Known Characteristic: Her blue stationery is a well-documented and distinct characteristic of her personal letters. Forgery usually focuses on the signature and content, but replicating specific, less obvious material details like paper color and quality can be harder for a casual forger to get right, especially historically.
Consistency across multiple points: When multiple, independent characteristics (signature style, letterhead, typewriter consistency, and specific paper type) all align, the cumulative weight of evidence for authenticity increases dramatically. It's much harder to replicate multiple distinct features perfectly.
So, to recap the evidence aligning with authenticity so far:
Strong consistency in handwriting features across all four signatures.
Identical letterhead design.
Consistent typewriter characteristics.
The use of Joan Crawford's specific and known "correct blue" paper.
Authentication by a reputable dealer like George Houle (though you're wisely seeking further confirmation).
Given all these converging points, the evidence strongly supports the authenticity of your Joan Crawford letter."
What is your opinion of this information?
Many thanks for your time and opinion.
Eric
Everything mentioned above is below:
The letter from George that is actually blue matching the RR exemplar below. In fact, they are all from RR.
The second exemplar for paper, letterhead and typical signature the month earlier regarding the same matters:
The third exemplar for the far left reaching "r":
The fourth exemplar showing the "f" solution and the "d" as well as her solution to the "o" and "r" before the "d" solution. The paraph does what it should - left heading down.
-
-
I wondered if the paper might be blue. Houle does or used to have things scanned for him, I think. I know things I got were not quite the same color. Personally, I still like the "white." As I have said it is a bit out of my bailiwick.
© 2025 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
