Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark Roberts on December 11, 2014 at 11:33am

It does.  Looks very nice...

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Viola on December 11, 2014 at 11:52am

AGREE

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on December 16, 2014 at 6:05pm

Notice how the "Mensa" student points out the "L" in Lee but circles the "y" in Jerry to compare it with.  Oh the intelligence of the group.  Maybe this is why he thinks the books and known in person exemplars look the same….I'm just saying

Grant December 16, 2014 at 11:36am

Notice how the "L" in Steve Viola's recent item matches the "L's" in the items that certain (I can't even use the word I'd like to ) individuals claimed were examples of "Whitten" "L's".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Roberts on December 16, 2014 at 6:26pm

I noticed that as well. Lets see.. The "L" looks just like the "Y". Case closed.

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad B on December 17, 2014 at 7:30am

This one (on the left reproduced below) is not that controversial to me. One has to pick a side to be on. When zoomed in and viewed in detail, you could argue JLL either only signed "Jerry Lewis" this time (which none of the other hundreds of examples we have reviewed has shown) or he signed Jerry Lee Lewis and the L in Lee as pointed out by the Vanderhoven has a shape very similar to the L in the Lee circled on the three signatures on the right. It would seem odd and a quite rare example, possibly the only one ever, that JLL would leave out Lee in his signature. The zoomed in view appears to show the "L" or "Y" (depending on your belief) was formed as a separate and new pen stroke and not a continuation of the word Jerry.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Roberts on December 17, 2014 at 7:44am

Are we ignoring the fact that the ones are the right - the "Thanks" looks nothing like other real examples.  The bottom of the T has a curve to it - on mine there is no curve what so ever. Comparing these to the ones I have. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad B on December 17, 2014 at 8:15am

I was ignoring everything other than the Y/L  issue in my last post. I will look at the thanks inscription next. On first look, I agree with you. What do you say about the Y/L issue Mark Roberts?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Roberts on December 17, 2014 at 8:21am

At first I was thinking that that is a Y.  I have not seen any example of a Y and L combined. I do not believe that the so called "L"in lee looks anything lil the L in Lee on the right.  Especially since it is combined with the Y like that. I am in no way confidence that the ones on the right are authentic. Too many red flags.  My opinion of course. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on December 17, 2014 at 10:39am

Notice that the signature at the top right shows extended spacing between the “N” and “K” in "Thanks." This is a characteristic of an authentic JLL inscription. I’ve seen this before, including in the inscription from the JG autographs example. That example also has the curved bottom of the “T”. Another thing to consider is that JLL will many times "cross" a capital “T” prior to drawing the stem of the “T”. This is present in many of the “To”s from the TTM inscriptions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on December 17, 2014 at 4:56pm

I believe that it is in fact the "L" in "Lee". There's a noticeable prior pen lift, and it is consistent with the formation of the bottom of his "L", but not his "Y". 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on December 16, 2014 at 6:09pm

Ballroom, anything you would like to add?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on December 16, 2014 at 6:41pm

Yes, I would. Why did you ignore the image that shows a "Sincerely" that is clearly in the hand of JLL along with a "Thanks" that is consistent with the ones on the pick guards?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• …
• 82
• Next ›
• Page