We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Judy Garland autograph opinions?
Hi,
I purchased this autographed photo of Judy Garland off of Etsy and I wanted to get some opinions if it is authentic or not? The photograph itself is a sepia photo of Judy Garland and Gene Kelly from 1948 film "The Pirate." I am assuming that if this was really signed by Judy, it would be from the late 1940's. The seller listed it at a cheaper price because they were not 100% sure if it was Judy's signature or her secretary. However, the seller told me this story..
"My father had been contracted back in 1954 to do renovations to the original Leows Poli Theatre in Hartford, CT and in doing so, was offered a box of these very large 10" by 13" movie star photographs that were going to be thrown away, he took them home where they sat packed away and were handed down to me in 1979.
I believe it is her signature, and it is more than likely is, I am listing these photographs simply as what they are, old movie star photographs so as not to disappoint anyone. If the signature were to be authenticated, by some sort of expert on this subject, the value would increase leaps and bounds." - Etsy seller
The first two photographs are the autograph that I purchased. The last photo, is of a signature that I found from the 1940's of Judy's that looks kind of similar in the "J", the "Y" and the "G", so I posted it, so people can compare. Sorry, if it's a little blurry. Please tell me your opinions, if this looks legit or not.
- Attachments: No photo uploads here
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Awful forgery - sorry.
Here is Judy Garland 1954 - click for full image:
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
The third photo appears to be a preprint; not an actual signature. The photo you purchased is not signed by Judy Garland. It does not even appear to be a secretarial.
Here is a link to a good reference on her signature throughout the years.
-
-
No, it is not a secretarial. That "J" and "G" have no correlative in 1948 or any other time. She was still using the upper case "G" along with the lower case at this time. It is a non-vintage forgery of very poor quality. I am seeing that color ink at sources like those more frequently, sometimes with a calligraphy nib. I speculate on a yellowed or vintage item the purple color takes on a somewhat aged look; I also note that genuine fountain pen signatures from the period do seem to retain some brilliance, but not like this considering the condition of the rest of the photo. Depending on how you paid, and when, you might be able to get your money back.
-
Permalink Reply by Michele on
-
Thanks to everyone for your help. Sadly, I did not find this forum before I purchased it. Luckily, I didn't lose out on loads of money but that stinks that its fake.
-
-
Did you use Paypal? When was the purchase?
-
-
Well, I hope it wasn't too much. Sorry this happened to you.
-
Permalink Reply by Rubijon on
-
Hopeless Forgery as previously advised. They tried to do their best with the J and the G but ended up being awful.
Can I please offer some advise regarding autographs, rule number 1 if a story about how it was originated starts similar to yours then you are about 95% sure to be buying a non authentic item.
I am not telling you something you dont already by now know but hopefully will assist you in the future.
-
-
Was hoping you could give me your opinion. It's the only scan I have - it was taken from the dealer's website. (Very reputable dealer)
It was signed in 1963. Thanks.
-
-
Hi Patricia,
I can't say very much from that low res image - I can not read any surfaces etc. I would need that in my hands really. However, it appears rushed and erratic, lacking the loops that often (not always) form most of the letters of her first name ("Judy") - this is not unknown for the period. She had a very light hand, especially in ballpoint (this is fountain), and could produce several flavors. She may have been rushed, impaired...and again this may well be reflected in the price. It is not an example I would collect, but that is just me. I don't see it as particularly "pretty","delicate" or complete (Garland). Those are my criterion for her signature. I can supply you with two scans of Garlands I authenticated and sold some years ago that I find very strong and of quality. The first is from 1960 and the second from 1965. The signature you posted would be from 1963 - there are many variations in those years from C. 1960 on, for various reasons. As always, I advise collecting strong examples that typify the period. Something can be genuine and still somewhat atypical, awkward, erratic, messy or even weak - again often shown in the price. I am not fond of those qualities in my collection. Others may disagree and that's fine. If the example you are considering fits your considered criterion, that is all that matters. I will also supply three links you probably have seen already and then the scans of my Garlands. You will see at those links some signatures from the late 1950's far into the 60's that are rather quick and simplified, or even abbreviated, not unlike the one you are considering. Look carefully at the quality of execution and completion, overall presentation and whatever else pleases your eye. I have said everything I could think of.
Autograph Magazine article by Tricia Eaton (RR auctions).
And here are 1960 and 1965 Garland signatures (my old 1956 is posted earlier in this thread):
1960 Concert Program Reverse songlist - look at the detail and loops - a full signature
1965 Garland and husband Mark Herron. Fast, light, but complete and delicate.
I hope this helps you make a more informed decision Patricia :) Hopefully others will chime in with their views.
Best wishes,
Eric~
-
-
Hello again Patricia,
You know, that scan appears a little overexposed. The item might look something more like this:
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
