Authenticity is Everything
Billie Holiday Autograph
I purchased this 78 vinyl record purportedly signed by Billie Holiday from an RACC trusted seller. I recently submitted the item to JSA for authentication, and unfortunately it did not pass.
I originally submitted it in person at a show here in CA a few weeks ago, and I was disappointed by how carelessly the item was handled during intake. When I received it back, there were fingerprints all over it. I contacted JSA immediately to report the condition, and they did expedite the review process.
Yesterday I received their letter confirming that the autograph did not pass authentication. I’m extremely disappointed and unsure what my next step should be, or if anyone here might be able to offer advice.
Prior to purchasing the item, I did my research and examined the signature characteristics—such as the looping of “Billie” and the shape of the “H” in “Holiday.” However, upon further inspection, the signature appears to have been written in ballpoint pen. Additionally, the Blue Ace label is known to be a bootleg label, and this particular pressing seems to have been released slightly before the time of her passing.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
I strongly believe that Ryan's Billie is genuine.
-
Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on
-
That's fine. I cannot see it myself but that's been clear for quite some time and these things can't be proved one way or the other, unless there is some evidence that cannot be refuted (e.g. the autograph is on something that didn't exist when the autograph is supposed to have been obtained).
-
-
-
Pug,
Post your comparisons of the 20 RR examples you are referring to.
-
-
I actually looked at all of them and was being a bit cautious when I mentioned 20. There are probably nearer to 50. I'm not enough of a technical wizard to copy them all over, at least not within a realistic time frame.
-
-
Pug, you made the comparison statement, so please post them.
-
-
Steve, I didn't originally intend to look at the "Billie" but when you asked if I'd looked at the first name I offered to make a "quick" comparison between the OP and the examples sold by RR. I did this and posted my findings.
I don't have the time at the moment to do any more than that and, as I said before, I believe there are enough inconsistencies in the surname to call the OP into question.
If you want to post examples that support your strong belief that the OP is genuine I'd be very interested to see them. I'd also be very happy to respond once I'm less busy, which will probably be in about a week.
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan W on
-
If this ever goes up for sale, it will be in the $15,000–$20,000 range—no question.
-
-
Ever heard of the site ValueYourMusic.com? I didn't until two days ago. I was searching and digging as hard as I could to try to find Ryan's Billie Holiday signed 78 came from. I found it there! Along with a price it sold for back in 2022.
Here's the about from ValueYourMusic:
ValueYourMusic DOES NOT SELL any items and is just a searchable archive of past auctions sales which can be used as a rough Price Guide for music artifacts.
The archive is updated with new sales and auctions every day.
The main formats we focus on are:
- Vinyl Records
- CD's
- 78 rpm Shellac records
- Cassettes
- Reel-to-reel tapes
- MiniDiscs
- Digital Compact Cassettes (DCC)
- Digital Audio Tapes (DAT)
- DVDs
- Blu-Rays
- Memory Sticks
- 8-Track cartridge tapes
- 4-Track cartridge tapes
- Playtapes
- Phonographic Cylinders
Autographs aren't mentioned there, but if you search for terms like "signed" along with an artist's name, you may find signed pieces. They basically track and search for records and other recording media, and downloads images and info on items sold, or listed and sold, on eBay, Amazon, perhaps record dealer sites, and other places collectible records are sold.
There are things listed there like I've never seen at an autograph dealer or auction site. And it appears that the record dealers often don't realize that they have something rare, highly desirable, and valuable.
I found a number of Billie Holiday signed albums. Some I thought were real, some I thought were fake, and some didn't have images good enough to tell. I saw several Billie Holiday signed pieces that I thought were real, and they sold for $900 and less.
To say I was surprised would be an understatement. Not one that I saw was labeled authenticated by PSA, JSA, BAS, ete., or any other TPA.
You have to buy a membership for $2.95/mo. to see more than one photo, but you get a 1 month free trial so there's no risk.
-
-
Conclusion
Original Seller Description:
“Autographed by Billie Holiday for someone with KHON, Hawaii. I obtained a number of records formerly owned by KHON, and this one was found among them. Probably VG/G+, but what is important about this record is that it is signed by the singer.”
The original seller did not fully recognize the importance of this signature, and even in subsequent resale, the record realized only approximately $600 more than its initial purchase—far below its true market value.
Comprehensive research and comparative analysis confirm that the ink tone, writing style, and overall characteristics are consistent with Billie Holiday’s documented setlist from the Continental Room. The inscription displays period-consistent ink and natural aging, further supporting authenticity.
Considering the stated provenance—its connection to KHON in Hawaii—and the strong stylistic alignment with Holiday’s known handwriting, the most plausible scenario is that this autograph was obtained during, or in direct connection with, her engagement at the Continental Room circa 1950. Epperson’s Letter of Authenticity further corroborates this assessment.
-
-
Thanks for your conclusion Ryan. I have been busy doing other things over the last week or so but I'd like to take up this discussion again.
I don't remember anyone writing a conclusion to their own discussion before. It's a pretty good idea, especially for a discussion that will soon extend to over 40 pages, but such a conclusion should also be complete and accurate.
Completeness
Your conclusion does not mention that the autograph was rejected by JSA and that the seller refused to respond to your resulting communications. It also does not mention that only one other participant in this discussion shared your confidence in the authenticity of the autograph.
Accuracy
According to information I have been able to find through some fairly simple Google searches, it is highly unlikely that this autograph was obtained by a KHON employee in 1950:
1. KONA, which was renamed KHON in 1965 (well after Billie's death), made its first TV broadcast on 16 November 1952 (Wikipedia). If there was another KHON (perhaps a radio station) I haven't been able to find it.
2. Billie Holiday's one month Honolulu residency with Eddie Baker Jnr. took place in 1956. (Wikipedia entry for Eddie Baker Jnr. and "What's Up Kansas City" site https://whatsupkansascity.net/27378-2/).
The set list you refer to and that RR Auction dates to "circa 1950" contains at least three songs that Billie did not record before 1953 ("Billie Holiday Songs" site):
a) Too Marvelous For Words (1953)
b) Come Rain or Come Shine (1955)
c) Don't Talk About Me When I'm Gone (1954)
I believe the photograph shown on the flyer is also likely to have been taken after 1950. The LP cover for "The Real Billie Holiday Story", 1956 (Soulmate Records, 211 - ATC 1023) seems to show Billie at a similar age.
The above information obviously has a massive bearing on the authentication of the autograph itself, both in terms of the style of autograph and the plausibility of the provenance. I will write about both those things once you have had a chance to verify the information I've just relayed.
-
-
Let’s start with your point about “completeness,” because that cuts both ways. You emphasized JSA rejection and the seller’s lack of response—but conveniently left out that the autograph received a positive opinion from Epperson. That’s not a minor omission—that’s a directly relevant expert authentication that contradicts the narrative you’re trying to build.
JSA declining to authenticate something is not the same as declaring it fake. It simply means they were unwilling to issue a certification under their standards. When you have a split opinion—JSA on one side and Epperson on the other—the only intellectually honest approach is to evaluate the signature itself, not selectively elevate the opinion that supports your conclusion.
On the “only one other participant agrees with you” point—that’s not evidence, it’s optics. Forum consensus has no bearing on authenticity, especially when most participants are not specialists in Holiday material.
Now to your timeline arguments, which are where your reasoning really breaks down:
You’ve gathered information suggesting that a strict “circa 1950” date may be inaccurate. Fine. But instead of adjusting the date, you’re using that to question authenticity—which doesn’t logically follow.
Auction houses like RR routinely assign approximate dates when exact provenance isn’t known. If this piece is actually mid-1950s—as your own research suggests—then the setlist, song selection, and even the photo all become more consistent, not less.
So your own evidence points to a dating correction, not a forgery.
The KHON/KONA point suffers from the same issue. You’re treating the station identification as fixed and historically precise, when in reality these attributions are often added later, misremembered, or generalized. That’s extremely common with vintage material. It’s not the kind of anchor you’re presenting it as.
As for the setlist, again—it works against your 1950 assumption, not against the autograph. The inclusion of songs associated with Holiday in the early-to-mid 1950s supports a later window, which aligns perfectly well with an authentic signature from that period.
What’s happening here is pretty straightforward: you’ve identified inconsistencies with an early date and then extended that into doubt about the autograph itself, instead of addressing the far simpler explanation that the date attribution is off.
And that brings it back to the core issue—you’re conflating provenance details with handwriting analysis. They’re related, but they’re not the same thing. Provenance can be imperfect. Signatures, on the other hand, have to be judged on their own characteristics.
In this case, the ink, flow, and writing style remain consistent with known examples of Holiday’s hand, and that assessment is supported by an experienced authenticator in Epperson.
So if we’re going to keep this discussion grounded, the questions should be:
- What is the correct timeframe for the piece?
- Does the signature match known authentic examples from that timeframe?
Right now, you’re answering the first and using it to cast doubt on the second, which simply doesn’t hold up.
-
-
Thanks for your reply Ryan.
If you read my post again you will see that I was not trying to write a conclusion myself, I was simply pointing to missing facts and inaccuracies in yours.
I didn't mention Roger's LOA because you already had. I also didn't say that JSA had declared your autograph a fake, just that they had rejected it. Perhaps I should have used your exact words and said that they hadn't passed it as authentic but we are really getting into semantics here.
I assume you agree that your conclusion contained the inaccuracies I pointed to.
Get Our Newsletter
© 2026 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
