Jack Kirby verified signature check19891
Pages:
1
 Forum Crier
|
OGJackster private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Let me start with this. If you were to pick a signature that could NOT be verified as arthentic, which would you choose? Or all are fake... or all are real? #1  #2  #3  #4  |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
 The apple sauce and pudding were the best part...
|
Bronte private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I dont know Jack from squat, but I'd say 3 and 4 are suspect. | ||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Rafel private msg quote post Address this user | |
| For me. It depends on who's selling it. Then I would get a second opinion. | ||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
 I don't believe this....and I know you don't care that I don't believe this.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
| To me, they get more real in descending order....I agree with @Bronte. ....and remember....not verifying does not mean it's fake....it just means they can't say it's real. |
||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
 I live in RI and Rhode Islanders eat chili with beans.
|
esaravo private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I’d pick #4 as looking the “most real” to me. Way too much variation from signature to signature, which is why we pay for verification. | ||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
grapeape private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Roz Kirby signed for Jack later in life. I'd guess the first one is Roz, second is Jack and 3 and 4 are done by Leo DiCaprio practicing for Catch Me If You Can. | ||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
 Cover, 8 pages before the staples, 8 pages after, back cover.
|
MrNotSoNice private msg quote post Address this user | |
This is a for sure real one for comparison. |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
Cover, 8 pages before the staples, 8 pages after, back cover.
|
MrNotSoNice private msg quote post Address this user | |
Also this one is real. |
||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
|
Cover, 8 pages before the staples, 8 pages after, back cover.
|
MrNotSoNice private msg quote post Address this user | |
Also this one. Now I’m just showing off. |
||
| Post 9 • IP flag post | ||
|
Cover, 8 pages before the staples, 8 pages after, back cover.
|
MrNotSoNice private msg quote post Address this user | |
| #3 looks the most legit to me. Jack signed things over so much of his life that the signatures vary quite a bit. | ||
| Post 10 • IP flag post | ||
 Feel free to use my post as a checklist.
|
multi007 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Well, I have a little experience with this kind of situation. The Stan Lee autograph that we were debating about last month (it was a Stan Lee collectible signed Venom with the Stan Lee company COA.) To remind everyone, I sent it in to CBCS Beckett to authenticate and encapsulate, it came back as unable to authenticate. So I asked to return for refund, he refused, filed dispute with credit card company. Over the past 30 days, I had some autographs that I was going to submit to JSA Authentication (Ft Lauderdale area). Since I live in Ft Lauderdale, Its a short 15 minute drive to their office to drop off. I figured Id spend the extra $50 and get a 2nd opinion of the Stan Lee autograph. Fast forward to today - Credit card company said I win the dispute when I send them the proof the autograph is not authentic. JSA says its authentic. Beckett says its not. So I decided to contact the CC company and stop the dispute, emailed the seller of the comic book and told him the same thing. Going to keep the book with the JSA documentation for my personal collection. Learned a good lesson too. I genuinely bought the uncertified book because i thought I was getting a good deal. Ended up losing a little money there (spent $150 on the book, $85 for the CBCS service, and $50 for JSA) instead of buying an actual CGC or CBCS verified slabbed book for a bout $250. 2nd opinions are an option in this Jack Kirby situation. |
||
| Post 11 • IP flag post | ||
 I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers).Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I mentioned this perhaps in another thread - I know there is a "standard" with ink type, signatures on file, and other criteria for verification. But I also think there is an unstated methodology associated with Stan Lee & Jack Kirby that goes above and beyond what is done for other signatures. They REALLY want to be sure with these two. Just a hunch |
||
| Post 12 • IP flag post | ||
|
Forum Crier
|
OGJackster private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Verifying signatures is a daunting task. After all, the verification of a signature is simply just a persons opinion. This short article is an interview of Tamara Plakins Thornton who is a University of Buffalo professor who's written a history of handwriting in the United States. The point I take away from this short interview is that a persons signature changes over time and different cicumstances. Jack Kirby was 76 years old when he passed. During his life, I'm fairly certain he signed THOUSANDS of books. He signed books when he was tired, hungry and probably when he wasn't feeling well. These factors, INCLUDING AGE, will influence how a person signs their name. Unless there is DNA or photographic evidence, I don't put alot of stock in any signature verification service. Don't get me wrong, I love it when my books come back as verified but, mistakes have been made especially on aging peoples signatures such as Kirby and Lee. clickable text The History Of Signatures And Their Present Relevance November 25, 2018 SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST: You know the expression signed, sealed and delivered. Well, the first word in that list may be losing its place in society. The signature is becoming less and less relevant as a personal identifier. Even major credit card companies have turned away from what used to be a mandatory John Hancock on your transaction. In the recent midterm elections, thousands of ballots in Florida were held up because of so-called signature mismatches. Election workers determined that signatures on ballots didn't match those officially on file. That may simply be because signatures aren't what they used to be, especially among the young. Tamara Plakins Thornton is a University of Buffalo professor who's written a history of handwriting in the United States. And she joins us on the show. Tamara, welcome. TAMARA PLAKINS THORNTON: Thank you. Pleasure to be here. PFEIFFER: Are you a believer that the signature is an endangered species? PLAKINS THORNTON: Well, yes. I do think it's endangered. But I guess I don't get all warm and fuzzy about handwriting where I feel we need to somehow save this species. Signatures to us, at least in the recent past, did mean a way to express our individuality, our distinctiveness. That I get warm and fuzzy about. Sure, I want us to be able to do that. How we do it, whether we do it through hand writing - not so important. PFEIFFER: It's true that signatures used to be very specific to a person, kind of like a fingerprint. But as our staff talked about this, some younger staffers said they rarely sign anything. Some people said they use different types of signatures for personal versus business transactions. Other people said their signature has eroded over time. Do you hear this type of thing too? And if so, what's driving it? PLAKINS THORNTON: Well, I do. You know, signatures, for a long time, were a kind of zone of self-expression. So people did use signatures as a way to express their distinctiveness. And people would take pride in that. But that's not what's going on anymore. PFEIFFER: When I heard that some signatures on midterm ballots didn't match signatures on file, that didn't surprise me because I often just write a messy scrawl when I'm signing things. And that wouldn't match my official signature either. PLAKINS THORNTON: Yeah. PFEIFFER: Does that say something about whether there's a flaw in this aspect of our election system? PLAKINS THORNTON: I think that that's probably true. And I think it's worth noting that we have not always assumed that every person's signature is distinct. It's really only in the mid-1800s that, even in the court system - legally - the notion comes about that your signature is a distinctive biomarker. PFEIFFER: Where are some of the places that signatures are still required? And does it surprise you that they still are? PLAKINS THORNTON: I have noticed more where they're not required. For example, when I write letters of recommendation for students to get into graduate school, that really - it's all online now. And instead of even having to do a facsimile signature, I just type it in and check a box saying, yup, it's me. And really, what's being checked is my IP address, not me. PFEIFFER: Interesting. PLAKINS THORNTON: That seems a little problematic to me. PFEIFFER: If signatures are fading away, what do you think will take their place? PLAKINS THORNTON: If we want to establish identity, we're going with biomarkers. And, of course, a signature is understood as a biomarker. But how we're going to use signatures, though, to express our individual distinctiveness, well, that's changing. I think it's really interesting how people are flocking toward getting their genomes done, right? 23andMe and Ancestry.com - and this has all of a sudden taken off, it seems to me. So I think - I'm curious to see what the next step is. PFEIFFER: So let's say 50 years or so down the line - do you feel like signatures will be kind of an old-fashioned craft on display at a booth at a renaissance fair? Are we actually going there? PLAKINS THORNTON: I don't expect handwriting to end. I think the death of handwriting is greatly exaggerated. Handwriting, I think, is with us to stay. It just has a different niche. And I think what's changing is that handwriting is not necessarily a place where we express our distinctiveness. PFEIFFER: Tamara Plakins Thornton is a professor of history at the University of Buffalo. Tamara, thank you very much. PLAKINS THORNTON: Thank you. |
||
| Post 13 • IP flag post | ||
|
Forum Crier
|
OGJackster private msg quote post Address this user | |
| BTW, here are the results... #'s 1,2, and 3 were unverifiable. #4 was verified. Here also (we'll call it #5) was also "verified" as real. #'s 1,2,3 and 5 were all part of the same lot and oddly only 1 was verified. #1 #2 #3 #4 ________________________________ #5  |
||
| Post 14 • IP flag post | ||
|
I live in RI and Rhode Islanders eat chili with beans.
|
esaravo private msg quote post Address this user | |
| That will be $60 for my verification service, thank you! Quote: Originally Posted by esaravo |
||
| Post 15 • IP flag post | ||
 I've spent years perfecting my brand of assholery.
|
DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by esaravo Wow, that was a swift price increase.  |
||
| Post 16 • IP flag post | ||
|
Forum Crier
|
OGJackster private msg quote post Address this user | |
Side-by-side, I see many differences but, both are verified.  |
||
| Post 17 • IP flag post | ||
|
I live in RI and Rhode Islanders eat chili with beans.
|
esaravo private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hey, that’s only $15 each. You have to charge for the unverified too. Quote: Originally Posted by DrWatson |
||
| Post 18 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
cyrano0521 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| #2 looked too fancy, like Riz or a secretary signed it. #4 is old, I know that cover…I think. 1 & 3 look like his later in life sigs from one’s I’ve seen authenticated. | ||
| Post 19 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?