Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 13, 2016 at 2:59pm

Hello,

 Well, just placement and presentation/appearance suggest it is part of the book. Pete C. will know immediately.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clayton Ferguson on April 13, 2016 at 3:26pm

Hopefully he will see this and let me know! I don't believe it is part of the book, from my investigating, I noticed the small pen trenches–grooves, within the middle of the thickness of the ink. I am sure it has been applied with ink, just not familiar with Mr. Lucas' autograph. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 13, 2016 at 4:58pm

Hello,

 I hope you are right! In negative, it looks dead, same as the type ink, and has no cross over I can detect and those "dots"/stops/starts. But, it s just a photo.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clay on April 13, 2016 at 7:07pm

Unfortunately, I was able to find a copy of the book online with the same signature that is printed.  I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you can see it on Google Books Here

https://books.google.com/books?id=FvHq-_NCryoC&pg=PR1&lpg=P...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 13, 2016 at 7:14pm

Yup.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on April 14, 2016 at 7:37pm

This later edition of the book was published in 1996 or 1997, so the signature while a facsimile of Georges late 1990's autograph is not from 1976 and not an ink autograph. It is just a part of the introduction reproduced in the book.

• ▶ Reply