Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on February 26, 2016 at 2:17pm

I fairly sure this is a secretarial. 

http://thecead.com/tnamesfolder/taylorelizabeth.pdf

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 27, 2016 at 2:41am

Yup, secretarial - 5th/6th example shown at thecead.com. Very neat and legible.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by automan on February 27, 2016 at 4:33am

thanks for the info,,however would be intrested on how the website has drawn its conclussions,icant find any very late  ip examplars anywhere on the internet,and the known genuine ones it gives are vintage in nature,one thing ive seen is uacc registered dealers seliing the example above as genuine too,,jury still out i guess

ie 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Elizabeth-Taylor-signed-photocard-others-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by automan on February 27, 2016 at 4:43am

supposedly in person here,,looks very much like my apparent secretarial

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bob-Hope-Elizabeth-Taylor-10x8-signed-pho...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on February 27, 2016 at 4:48am

I am not an expert nor trying to pretend I'm one here. This photo may be authentic, I am only speaking for my personal self. I would not want it. It looks way too nice and neat to me. Not trying to debunk this signed photo, just offering my personal opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on February 27, 2016 at 4:44am

If I were a speculating person I would side with it being a secretarial, there are so many of these similar neatly signed photos and Elizabeth's signatures were rarely that nice and consistent. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder although, I would think, for this to have decent market value to the general collecting public it would require a PSA or JSA sticker. Not that they are perfect but the name recognition carries some weight in the marketplace. That's in terms of market value exclusively. As for collector value, the satisfaction is worth more than the sticker. Collecting in the 21st. century.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by automan on February 27, 2016 at 4:54am

ok joe thanks for your opinion,,,but an explanation for the neatness could be the fact,,it was signed in a relaxed atmosphere,,i dont know to be honest one way or the other,,but i think its important not to draw conclussions on any autograph until there is sufficient in person examples from the same time period,and i dont see that,the latest i see is the 1990s

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by automan on February 27, 2016 at 5:07am

my suspicion is the website has compared early examples of liz with the late ones for comparison  due to the fact she practically stopped signing late in life in person,one other thing,why have a secretary at all if she was sending out autopens anyway?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 27, 2016 at 12:58pm

Hello,

Heston, Gleason...she had secretarials/preprints/facsimile for folks that sent her photographs and requests and wanted items with a signature returned.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on February 27, 2016 at 5:08am

I guess that why there is TPA services. They are no more perfect but someone has to be a referee. They can make a bad call too. Bob Hope was in his 90's in the 90's and probably signed little, if anything in person.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 27, 2016 at 12:20pm

The conclusion there at thecead.com would be drawn from source/origin as well as style and date etc.

I don't see anything here but a secretarial "Taylor" (the 5th/6th examples under "Secretarial" are by the same hand. No jury out here. Even if you cast those secretarial aside, all of them, the hand is not Taylor's. This was "signed" to be read - much too legible. And signed in 2010?

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 27, 2016 at 6:11am

Here's a piece we did on Taylor that may help as well:

http://autographmagazine.com/elizabeth-taylor-autographs-66-love-le...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page