We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

The tangled web of JFK (autographs)! - Re: Auction Houses

Anyone with a little familiarity with John F. Kennedy signatures knows that locating authentic ones is no easy task. The author Charles Hamilton even more than suggested that Kennedy's autograph was quite possibly the most ever-changing one in American history. Kennedy's signature style could literally change within the hour. Still, there were consistencies enough that that Hamilton was able to write a landmark book on JFK's autograph variations.

Yet even though getting JFK's autograph properly authenticated is not easy, you would still pretty much expect major auction houses to get it right. Well, that doesn't always happen. Below, I show pics where two prominent houses got it wrong - mistakes that cost two buyers several thousand dollars.

The first picture is from the auction house Guernsey's. About seven years ago in March 2008, Guernsey's sold a signed White House presentation copy of JFK's award-winning book, "Profiles in Courage" for $3000. It was a secretarial-signed copy that even a cursory examination of Hamilton's book would have revealed. In fact, I believe almost all of these White House copies were signed by secretaries.

The second and third pictures are from the very highly-regarded auction house Christie's. Just a little more than three years ago, in Nov. 2011, Christie's sold a JFK signed photo with inscription for $5000. It too was signed by a secretary - this time Jill Cowan.

It really is alarming when a famous auction house like Christie's messes up. Especially when just a little research - that should have been easily available to a place like that - could have averted the debacle.

Though these are not super recent cases, screw-ups like this are likely still going on. So the moral of he story is: you can't even necessarily trust your major international auction house to always get it right. As NBC used to say, "The more you know..."

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

image.jpg, 216 KB
image.jpg, 346 KB
image.jpg, 224 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chad B on January 22, 2015 at 9:36pm

I think the signature in the book looks odd. It surprises me he wouldn't hand sign a book for Cecil Stoughton.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 22, 2015 at 10:14pm

I believe the name of the secretary that signed it was Priscella Wear. She apparently signed many, many of these special presentation copies. I agree, it is surprising that even the ones going to senators and congressmen were mostly all secretarial. I'm sure there were probably some exceptions, because, I mean, he could at anytime whip out a pen and sign one really quickly. But that one above is definitely secretarial.

I first learned of this by watching John Reznikoff's YouTube video on authenticating JFK signatures. And then you see that signature style on many photos as well. At the time, of course, most people thought they were getting real autographs. Kind of like the Babe Ruth Sinclair Oil ghost-signed baseballs that people thought for years were really signed by Ruth.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on January 22, 2015 at 10:55pm

Obviously anyone can make a mistake; - but as you say Christies.......however, what I have found interesting is that the staff in the UK branch that I have seen appeared very, very young so how can they have built up that much expertise in every autograph they look at? Just a thought....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 23, 2015 at 1:37am

Well that's a very...scary thought, perhaps?! You're right. It makes you wonder sometimes who is doing the examining. And then if the fairly young and inexperienced employee is reviewing a somewhat complicated signer like JFK, well the result might be less than desired, quite possibly. I think that's a good consideration, Michelle.

Of course, I'm not suggesting they're messing all that frequently, but maybe just a little more than we'd like to see. I think the error on that copy of "Profiles" is worse. It seems like that one is a more well-known secretarial style.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vestland on January 24, 2015 at 5:51am

Here`s another major mistake from one of the big auction houses, a really bad U2 forgery which sold for £2000/$3280.. (you would really expect more knowledge from a premium auction like this, wouldn`t you?)

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/memorabilia/u2-5447364-details.a...

Similar bad forgery by same forger is also on ebay at the moment for $450: (At least the seller is "very honest in the listing: "Don't MISS this one of a kind collector piece it is UNREAL!!!!" )..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-U2-Shadowboxed-Signed-Drumhead-With-2-...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on January 24, 2015 at 7:17am

bad news really....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chip Bronson on February 7, 2017 at 6:14pm

with all due respect, I do not believe that the Hamilton book is a reliable guide to the authenticity of JFK's signatures.

in that book, signatures, very similar to signatures which were witnessed, or signatures which appeared on documents that were very unlikely to have been given to a secretary were declared to be inauthentic.

for example, have you seen the signatures on cabinet appointments? would you assume those signatures to be authentic? if one maintains that among the most important documents purportedly signed by the President, there are secretarials or autopens, then, there is little point in beginning a discussion of the subject: though certain signatures can with confidence be declared inauthentic, it is impossible to arrive at a definitive or authoritative conclusion about many other signatures. [This uncertainty, unfortunately, immunizes sellers against claims of inauthenticity.]

what was the reaction of the auction houses to the assertions contained in this article?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on February 7, 2017 at 8:14pm

I have no idea what their reaction was. I just found these screw-ups on my own while I was surfing around the web a couple of years ago.

I think it is now widely-accepted that those presentation copies of the "Profiles" book that were given out to some prominent people were, in fact, secretarial-signed. The one that I have pictured I believe was the work of Priscilla Wear, a JFK secretary. It was definitely not signed by Kennedy.

The signed and inscribed photo is definitely not an authentic JFK. That for sure is not his handwriting. The huge majority of signed JFK photos were signed by secretaries. Many, many people would send in letters to the White House requesting an autograph from the President, and would often include a photo. Weeks later, they would get a signed photo or other item back from the WH with a letter from JFK secretary Evelyn Lincoln saying that "the President was happy to autograph this for you". So the happy recipient would use that letter as "proof" their autograph was real...when in fact it was signed by a secretary.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on February 7, 2017 at 10:20pm

I believe that on high-level appointments, JFK did sign those personally. However, on things like postal appointments, those may have been autopen signed. From what I gather, autopen signatures, by most White Houses, are considered to be an official presidential signature and legally binding. However, as we know, to collectors, autopen signatures are NOT the real signature of the president we are looking for.

Regarding, Hamilton, though there have been some additions by others to his work, and possibly one, maybe two possible corrections, the vast majority of his work on JFK signatures is still held in very high regard.

Andreas Weimer, a member of this site, has done his own study and added even more to our knowledge of JFK signatures.