Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 30, 2014 at 6:31pm

This is definitely not genuine in my opinion. Here are some examples of Grace Kelly autographs:

http://www.psacard.com/autographfacts/AutographDetail/223/grace-kelly

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Istvan Szabo, Ifj. on November 30, 2014 at 11:49pm

The first three confused me as they're different, true, but the fourth, but mostly the fifth and sixth one seems exactly like this one. The rotated 3 "E"s are correct, the first L in the Kelly is smaller, while the second is larger. And the K and the Y also has the same arcs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Istvan Szabo, Ifj. on December 1, 2014 at 1:55am

In the meantime I did a little background check, but it seems this one is genuine as well, regardless that it does not seem like the first three at PSA. It was acquired by a studio phone operator in 1954 who have lived and worked in Hollywood in the 1940-50s. This date can be confirmed as beyond April 1956 Grace has signed only as Grace De Monaco, instead of Kelly (And forgers does not know this tiny detail.). And the actual photo is a Bud Fraker photo which was taken in the late 1954 (Another detail what forgers does not used to know and used to slip as they tend to believe that this photo is from the early 1955 or 56.). So the date seems to be correct, at least the photo's, as it fits into this late 54, early 56 time frame. And Grace also did not have a secretarial signature, so we also can draw that possibility out. And the collector lady also had many others in her collection, Bergman, Crawford, Garland, and each of the signatures checks out without exception. And Grace was one of her favorites, so I don't believe that she would have one fake in her collection, while she had the rest as genuine and signed in person. The reason it might seem different that it was signed in person, not via studio requests (Those tend to seem to be the same, like the examples, as they were signed near the table, but I've also found some in person samples that seems like this one and the reason why I start to believe that this is genuine.).

So this one is a strange beast, but due to the age of the photo, which is definitely a Type 1 Bud Fraker what I also collect, is already a great find. If the signature is not genuine, at least the photo is as Bud Fraker / Grace Kelly 1954 Type 1, which is extremely rare. But due to the details I also start to believe that this signature is genuine, even if the "G" looks slightly different than in the samples (But the "Kelly" is the same like the rest (I've compared with about 12-15 different Grace Kelly signatures, even rare in person signed ones.).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 1, 2014 at 4:03am

Did you delete the photos? Please don't do that on this site if you did.

Unfortunately, the autograph you posted didn't even resemble any style of Grace Kelly signature I've ever seen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Istvan Szabo, Ifj. on December 1, 2014 at 4:41am

Here is a comparison I've made. The first three is the one that resembles to it the most (Those are from other sources, not from PSA, but those are also genuine. Although they're the rare in person types. The fourth is from the picture, without the 30 degree tilting.). The G seems different, but it seems she had written the G this way in rare occasions (See the upper samples, especially #3). If its authentic as it is claimed, its one of the very rare types. What I know for sure, the elements that are used to fail during the forgeries are the "e"s as she has written two different types time to time (A standard e and the mirrored 3 type "e"), and the double "l"s where the first "l" was usually smaller than the second. Here both of them seems correct to me. The "Grace" part is what is making it questionable, but the Kelly part seems very authentic to me. I wouldn't be surprised that if it would be the case. When I sign my own name on my books and arts sometimes I also used to screw the first part of my signature. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Istvan Szabo, Ifj. on December 1, 2014 at 8:05am

Steve. Check this out! One of my friend who works at forensics gave me an idea. As I already have so many samples, she told me to try to build up the questionable signature from the other authentic ones by overlapping partials, as even if the signature changes due to circumstances, behavior, mood, visibility, and such, the arcs, the spaces, the loops are usually the same and are returning elements as its in the hand. Here is the result (The numbers are showing the signatures which shows partial or complete match with the questioned signature.). While it seems as a strange autograph, every single element, arcs, loops exists in different signatures, even in a distorted form. So it seems authentic, regardless its very strange and does not resemble to any of the well known ones. Most of the match is with autograph #3, which is a 1955 To Catch a Thief authentic signature. Especially the G. Its back arc is 100% identical while the rest is partially identical. The LL loops are also 90% identical to #3, while the Y is 100% match with #5. Considering that this questioned signature was signed in the late 1954 and many parts of it shows pretty close resemblance to signature #3, which is from the early-mid-1955, its possible that its authentic. Of course, I can be wrong. I just had some time to check some possibilities. :)

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 1, 2014 at 8:29am

This is becoming interesting, Istvan!

I still don't think it's real, but maybe I'm wrong. RRAuction.com's past auction database now shows images without visitors having to sign in. They have lots of Grace Kelly autographs online, and they are very reliable when it comes to authenticity. See if you can find anything more closely resembling the one you have there.

Did you buy the one at the top of the discussion? If you haven't, be careful about buying an autograph that doesn't look genuine, even if it may be. They are usually extremely hard to sell for anywhere near market value.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Istvan Szabo, Ifj. on December 1, 2014 at 8:35am

Thanks. I'm going to check RRAuction out. And yes, it's becoming more and more interesting. But I love mysteries. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Istvan Szabo, Ifj. on December 1, 2014 at 9:36am

Thanks. I've found a very few. It seems by some reason she has signed close to this way between late 1954 and mid 55, but never after or before that. There are a very-very few ones pretty close to the questioned one. In some the Grace matches 90% (Some are even in the Grace De Monaco era), in others the Kelly matches 100%. This is the closest in style where both are pretty close.
http://rrauction.k2imgs.com/content/images/larger/3237/3237897.jpg

I've made the same forensic style comparison and every letter has the very same proportion, arc and scale, even if they're distorted. So its either one of her very unique in person autograph what she never reproduced before and after and / or which was signed during a very strange condition, poor light, against the wall, or when she was very relaxed or such. Or whoever has signed this, a forger, was able to keep the very same arcs, loops, scales and such as it is matches with most of her signatures. But in this case the question is; why the forger couldn't make a proper fake? Keeping the proportions is the hardest in everything, be it art or signatures, yet here its a match with every signature. Yet, the signature seems different.

And thanks for the warning. However I'm not intending to sell as I'm collecting everything Grace Kelly. I have a humble Type 1 photo collection of her, along with her life mask and such. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Istvan Szabo, Ifj. on December 1, 2014 at 1:21pm

Steve. After all this "Let's play C.S.I.", I've shown my results to the forensic lady and she told me that there are two possibilities;

Possibility A; as I was able to build up the questionable signature from 5 authentic ones, and I also was able to find one which has the same qualities and matches about 70-80%, there is a chance that its authentic, but the signing was affected by something, which has changed the overall look, but kept all the traits of the other signatures one way or another. Maybe the lady was in between a transition of two signature types (This would explain why the pre-late 1954 signatures are usually written with looped "E"s, while the after mid-1955s are with mirrored "3"s. As this was signed around in between the two era, this is one possibility, a strange transition signature (And this also confirms the seller's story, which marked this era for the origin as well.). This also would explain why it shows great similarity with the early and mid-1955 signatures. The gap on Grace's "A", the back arcs of the "G" and "E" is a definite match, so as the loops of the "LL" and the lead in and out of the "Y", which is 100% match in most cases. Of course, this is her non-official observation. But this is how she sees this possibility.

Possibility B; as always its possible that its a forgery, but in this case whoever has signed this picture had the very same writing skills what Grace had as each of the loops, arcs, crossings is a perfect match, so as it seems. In this case the question is; if the forger was skilled, especially as there are no stopping in between the letters or anywhere at all, the signature feels natural without any hesitation and stopping, has a natural lead in and out, and many elements are also a complete match, why the forged autograph seems so different as the skill was definitely there to make a perfect copy.

As she said, I did good that I got this photo because of two reasons (I've bought it a not long ago, but honestly I don't regret it. I always felt that there is something special in it, other than the origin story, what I really like.); regardless which possibility is the truth, its a one of a kind autograph. If its real, its a very strange and extremely rare signature of Gracie, along with an extraordinary origin story, which checks out from the beginning to the end. If its a fake one, its also a very strange and unique signature as whoever signed it had exactly the very same writing style what Gracie had.

Personally I can't decide, but honestly, this feels good. Sometimes a good mystery and be in doubt is more refreshing than knowing that something is authentic or not. Well, Grace always loved mysteries and loved to trick people to don't lose the mystery surrounding her. Maybe its one of those little angelic games of her. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 1, 2014 at 2:01pm

You've done some serious investigative work, Istvan. Thank you! I'm in the middle of some projects right now, but I'm going to see if I can interest more people in participating.

Her autograph is so close in color to the photo that I have to ask: did you check to see if it's printed into the photo? Doesn't look like it to me but just in case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wascher on December 1, 2014 at 2:15pm

Also something that I mentioned on some tracings a few weeks back, that if the colors are so close to each-other that are being layered (in my case it was two drawings and not two autographs) that they blend and its hard to distinguish one from the other and they become one.  Your autographs are both similar in color as well

Istvan you seem quite good at layering, do you still have it on the computer that it can be worked with in the layers feature?  If so can either the overlap layer hues or the first layer hue be changed to a different color?  I'm wondering if it will help differentiate the two sigs.

-w

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page