Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 18, 2011 at 3:10pm

Herman....

What no pics to back up your opinion.

Here are some quotes you may remember Herman:

 

" YUK.  The "Good Luck" looks more like Ron Howard than Ron Reagan. Even if it's authentic, it"s unsaleable at any decent level, let alone $ 1504,00."

 

"And that Reagan photo still sucks"

 

"Herman, old friend, I'm surprised at you. You can honestly tell me that the letter size and spacing are even remotely similar? And somone signing on a portfolio would certainly NOT write in tiny letters - they would be larger and more sloppily penned."

 

"If this item isn't a forgery or secretarial. Ronnie must have been on the sauce"

 

So Herman, the above quotes come from your friend and respected Autograph Dealer

Bill Panagopulos.

Guess what Herman, I just corrected you. Wrong Again. Dont forget to post the pics....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on May 18, 2011 at 8:23pm

Bill's wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 18, 2011 at 3:47pm

Ok, you two - before you start arguing like a married couple the Peanut Gallery is cacusing on matters... but we are convinced BL (remember him) sees the value of updating studies when there are defined variations so these discussions can be amicably resolved w/o resorting to harpoons, flames and credentials...     Otherwise, we all breakdown just like another site and stoop to the same level of casting accusations or worse.. 

 

Herman, perhaps you should speak with Rez with regards to studies & Bob there might not be an answer because the studies don't cover this variation that has already been pointed out. 

 

BL, you were going to have Bill White or someone from the R&R gang chime in so perhaps before this degenerates even further....  

 

btw, Bob ~ Mr. Bill (sauce, or no salsa) did also say, "even if it IS Real" as well he just didn't like the inscription...     Thus the Peanut Gallery after consensus feels we are here to help each other understand  and we can agree to disagree but let's not become disagreeable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 18, 2011 at 3:59pm

DB

I have been respectful here at all times.

However when Herman accuses me off fabricating evidence,

I will not stand for it.

The information has been posted.

Nothing I have posted has been fabricated, unless Herman knows something about the studies that I don't

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on May 18, 2011 at 8:19pm

Bob, I did not accuse and am not accusing you of fabricating evidence.  And as far as you purchasing autographs from respected dealers for 45 years, I've bought medicine at drug stores for over 50 years...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 18, 2011 at 4:10pm

Everyone get's testy here at times..  When you bring in Mr. Bill dem are fighting words ;-)  You brought up the key point, "it ain't in the study" and if that bears out correctly then the studies are incomplete; plain and simple.

 

IF others like White, Rez and so on concur with Herman then it's simple - update the studies. 

 

If there is something else amiss other than the inscription then discuss what that is....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 18, 2011 at 4:16pm

DB

Herman was the one who said I was the only one questioning the authenticity.

Facts are Facts. Mr. Bill didn't like it either.

The Ronald Reagan Signature is not showing the proper charecteristics as well.

The Bill White Study clearly shows how to identify an authentic Reagan Signature.

Anyone who might be interested should give it a look.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on May 19, 2011 at 7:05am

 

Bob,

 

I confess that I should preface all my conclusions with “it is my opinion to a great degree of professional certainty that…” Perhaps it is presumptuous and undoubtedly taken the wrong way when I express that you, Bill P., are “wrong” - I should have said, “it is my opinion that you are wrong.”

 

 I discussed this with John who feels that the Saul photo has writing that is within acceptable parameters of known examples he has handled from the period. He was not asked to opine for RR, PSA or anyone else and has no vested interest in any way, shape, or form, but feels it is genuine, like myself. On occasion John and I disagree about items we look at, but not that often. We always respect each other’s opinions, and I respect yours.

 

In contemplating this all, I think that you are right to possibly rule out the Saul photo relying only on the three studies. In a way, it is a compliment to us three.  Although the video has an early example signed “Dutch” that to a great degree shares many characteristics with the Saul photo, the point is not clear to the casual or professional observer.  The bottom line is that the Saul example should be added as genuine  to the video and two studies, because the three of us do feel it is genuine.

 

It is kind of like when a new Autopen pattern is discovered (In the "Hup" correspondence we did discover two “Dutch” Autopen patterns and let people know about it), past scholarly treatises need to be amended. The great thing about knowledge is that it does not stop on a line. It is organic and ever growing and evolving.

 

Again just my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 19, 2011 at 9:15am

bravo, herman, bravo;  now the peanut gallery can move onto  other things...

 

speaking of which the item nows sits just over $1500 so someone is banking it's real especially with the Saul collection which has to be considered as valid provenance even if there are no pictures like colbert.

 

what strikes me is that the Elizabeth Taylor letters in 2nd place are only at $24.6k while the Motion Picture Archive Documents are well ahead at $49.9k but then again it's still 6 hours to go.  Speaking of which did you see the Heston!  That pic is going over in the Heston study as that is one of the better CHARs to date.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Panagopulos on May 18, 2011 at 7:29pm

I'm back, albeit only on this thread.

Yes, I said: "...even if it is right..." I will say this: anyone who thinks that the inscriptions in the two R&R photos even remotely resemble each other in character formation, size, spacing, or for that matter, anything else...needs new glasses. 

I'll also say this: to approve or condemn a piece on "To" alone is ridiculous - it takes a lot more than that. Sorry.

BTW - the Reznikoff/Reagan production did very little to convince me of anything. Frankly, I saw very little similarities between any of the comparisons: slant, letter formation...the whole megila.  And the "authentic" Reagan used for comparison purposes was penned decades after the earlier examples cited. So - I'm not convinced.

But what do I know? 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill White on May 19, 2011 at 11:48am

First, thanks for all of the kind references to my Reagan study; I never realized it came in so handy and it's gratifying to see that it made an impact.

 

As for the Saul photo: honestly, comparing it to the three mentioned studies, it fails on every level. There. I said it.

 

Comparing nuances of slant and angle and letter spacing, or the subtle bends in the downstroke of a "T" or the way that "T" is crossed, are all excellent ways for a seasoned eye to weed out good from bad, but it's not infallible by any means. As flattering as it is to have my study used as a reference, I'll be the first to admit that it's far from comprehensive and was meant only as a guide, to give collectors things to look for, good and bad. Authenticating is an art, not a science, and to try to analyze handwriting by scientifically comparing it to a tiny cross-section of examples just doesn't usually make sense when dealing with in-person examples.

 

Having poured through literally thousands of autograph books over the past three decades, I've seen authentic examples of highly recognizable signatures that made me shake my head! I would look for known, expected characteristics that just weren't present in the example at hand, but everything in the book was good. The collector had collected in-person but there were circumstances that resulted in a signature that looked completely off the wall. Signatures like these could never be handled "scientifically" and could only be supported by provenance, or the less tangible mix of experience, logic, and feel.

 

As already discussed at length, the Reagan photo comes from a known in-person collection of 1000 other photos, all signed with a similar pen, at similar time periods in similar surroundings. Logically it isn't a forgery or a secretarial. It may have been signed on the mentioned portfolio or not, there's no way to tell, so there's no explainable way to account for its very slightly uncharacteristic look. It was signed in-person, and it certainly has the proper "feel" to it. Having gone through the entire Goodman collection, there's no doubt in my mind that everything in it, including this Reagan, is absolutely authentic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 19, 2011 at 2:01pm

Bill....

Thanks very much for the detailed response.

I really appreciate it very much

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page