Raab Collection

Table of Contents

Part I: Assessing the Quality and Value of Autographs

The Concept of Value in Autographs
Some Fundamental Definitions
The Impact of Supply and Demand on Value
The Meaning of Quality in Letters, Manuscripts and Documents
Understanding Content and Importance
Gradations of Autograph Values
How This Applies to Signed Photographs and Books
The Impact of Condition on Prices
Misrepresented Quality

Part II: Authenticating Autographs

The Eternal Question: “How Do You Know It’s Real?”
Raab’s 10 Steps of Authentication

1. Apply the Burden of Proof
2. Ascertain the Provenance
3. Check Consistency With Authentic Examples
4. Make Sure the Paper, Pen and Ink Are Right
5. Assess Dissimilarities and Idiosyncracies in the Writing
6. Do a Forgery-Avoidance Inspection
7. Check for Autopens
8. Assess for Evidence of Secretaries or Stamps
9. Assess for Evidence of Facsimile
10. Consider Special Factors

Part III: Forgeries

Our First Focus: The Autographs Themselves

Know Where the Greatest Dangers Lie
Be Careful What You Buy
Know About Signatures With a Difference
Hastily Signed
More Handwriting Is Better

Our Second Focus: On the Dealers and Auctions Who Sell Autographs

How to Identify Reputable Dealers
Analyzing Auctions
Understand the Nature of a Guarantee
Know the Real Value of a Certificate of Authenticity
Dealers Who Protest Too Much or Know Too Much
Know the Identified Forgers
The “R” Word
On-Line Issues

Part IV: Particular Issues in Buying Autographs

That Was Once a Rare Autograph
Presidential Documents
Confusions in Identities
Fads and Those Who Died Young
One in a Milion Isn’t Worth It
Remember Elizabeth Claypoole
Do Some Treasure Hunting

Part V: A Miscellany of Autograph Nuggets

What to Collect; Focusing on Sets
Prices Guides: Not the Gospel
Research
Is an Autograph an Investment?
Thoughts on the Autograph Marketplace Today

PART I: Assessing the quality and value of manuscripts

The Concept of Value in Autographs

I first got started in this field back in 1986. At that time, I was like a kid in a candy store, buying without much discrimination whatever caught my eye and fit my budget. Over lunch a respected dealer gave me some unsolicited advice. “Buy fewer things,” he told me, “but make them the highest quality you can afford.” I was impressed, and began a search for the true meaning of quality that has defined my relationship to autographs, and taken me through analysis of dealer and auction catalogs by the thousands, innumerable purchases at auction and by direct sale from dealers and private sellers, and conversations galore with knowledgeable individuals. In the end, it would take me many years to fully understand the implications of the advice and its value. Here are the lessons I learned along the way.

Some Fundamental Definitions

Autographs come in six basic formats: letters, manuscripts, documents, signed photographs, signed books and signatures. The first three are of greatest significance in our search for quality, and we will concentrate on them. We will begin with some practical definitions. These are not meant to be dictionary definitions, but to explain how the words are commonly used in an autograph context. Letters are communications between people, whether handwritten or typed. They will usually address someone by name, such as “Dear Mrs. Jones.” Letters have been called “frozen moments of history,” and indeed they are. If a letter is entirely written in the hand of the person who signed it, it is referred to as an Autograph Letter Signed, commonly abbreviated to ALS. If the letter is signed but the body of the letter is in a secretarial hand, it is referred to as a Letter Signed, or LS. In the past hundred years or so, the most common letters are typed and signed. These then are TLS’s. Manuscripts are descriptive narratives or other original handwritten or typed materials not intended as inter-personal communications. Musical compositions, lecture notes and diaries would be good examples. Documents (DS’s) are signed forms, contracts or official papers, such as agreements between parties, property deeds, receipts, bank checks, free franks, theater programs or appointments to government service. We will also deal here to a lesser extent with two of the other formats, signed photographs and signed books. Signatures are outside of our sphere, as even if expensive, they lack quality.

The Impact of Supply and Demand on Value

Like with everything else, autographs respond to the basis laws of supply and demand. A clear example of this can be found in the autographs of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Of the 56 signers, only a very few (such as Franklin and Jefferson) would have any claim to fame (and therefore any autographic value) other than for having signed the document. Among the rest are Button Gwinnett, an otherwise obscure Georgia official and Josiah Bartlett, an otherwise obscure New Hampshire physician. Obviously, the demand for the autographs of these two men is for all intents and purposes exactly the same: as signers. Suppose on the same day in the same year Gwinnett and Bartlett signed a very similar routine document, a receipt perhaps. That of Bartlett would be worth $500 today, while that of Gwinnett would be worth over $100,000. Gwinnett emigrated to America in 1760 and was killed in a duel at age 42. He spent most of his life avoiding creditors and signed very little; perhaps 50 autographs of Gwinnett are known to exist. Bartlett on the other hand was active for over 40 years as a physician and minor government official. Many hundreds, possibly thousands, of his autographs exist, and a large number have reached the marketplace. So, with demand being completely equal, the reason for the $99,500 plus difference in value is based purely on supply.

With such a small supply, if the document of Gwinnett was stained, torn or creased, it would still be worth close to the $100,000 figure. The demand would be the same. However, one of Bartlett in similarly poor condition might be worth only $200, because the supply of ones in fine condition is ample and demand for a poor one would be low. If Gwinnett’s document was dated in the magical year of 1776, it would probably still be worth $100,000. Despite the date, there is no change in the supply or demand. If Bartlett’s was dated 1776, the demand would rise yet the supply would be meager; it would be worth much more than $500.

Of course, demand is determined by the extent of the public’s desire for a person’s autograph, and supply by the basic number of the autographs available. There is one crucial factor that has a definitive impact on both supply and demand in this field - quality.

The Meaning of Quality in Letters, Manuscripts and Documents

Quality depends directly upon the autograph’s content or intrinsic importance (by this latter term I mean that it has importance in and of itself). If you understand these two concepts, you will be armed with the tools you need to navigate successfully in autograph waters. And considering the price of autographs and pitfalls in the marketplace, they are tools you can ill afford to be without.

Can you measure something as seemingly subjective as quality? Absolutely. Here are the rules we use.

Understanding Content and Importance

The content of a letter or manuscript, put simply, consists of what it says. But it is more; it is the creative product of the human mind. It can be illuminating, dramatic, incisive, artistic or comic; indeed it can carry any emotion or message. The content means everything to an autograph’s value, so determining the quality of that content is essential. We divide content into three essential grades of quality: good, medium and low. Although an in-depth study would show that there are micro-grades within these grades, the 3-tiered system works perfectly for our purposes.

A good content letter or manuscript is one in which the writer either tells you something of great interest or significance about himself or a primary field of his endeavor, illustrates creativity in that field, or provides valuable descriptions or information about an important event. A medium content letter or manuscript is one which says something either of moderate interest or significance, or, though of greater interest, relates to matters or events outside of the writer’s primary field of endeavor. It offers nothing that could be considered especially valuable or creative. A low content letter or manuscript is merely an example. It lacks interest, is not creative, and says nothing significant or valuable. Some examples will illustrate what I mean.

We will start with letters. A letter of George Washington saying he is too busy to accept an invitation to dinner may be expensive, but says nothing anyone benefits by knowing, so it has low content. A letter of his about running his plantation at Mount Vernon would be interesting because it is germane to his life, but since Washington is best remembered for his leadership as general and president (and not as a farmer), it would be considered of just medium quality. A letter of his from the Revolutionary War ordering his chief spy, Benjamin Tallmadge, to obtain information on enemy troop dispositions, has good content, as it is historically significant and directly relates to his performance as commander of the Continental Army. When Albert Einstein writes a letter about what compelled him to a life in science, that's good content indeed. When he writes a letter to try and help a refugee obtain a teaching position in the U.S., that’s medium content. And when he sends thanks for birthday greetings, that’s low content. When Grover Cleveland pens a letter describing the nature of the presidency, that's good content. When he writes about his oral surgery, that’s medium content. And when he pens about going fishing, that’s low content. A letter of a Civil War soldier writing home about camp life is routine and has low content, while one mentioning that he had seen President Lincoln would have medium content. A letter of his containing a first hand account of the Battle of Antietam is exciting and has good content (and may even shed new light on the event). And so it goes for everyone. Please note that not all good content letters are expensive, as these principles hold true regardless of price. For example, when Robert Ballard relates his emotions on first seeing the Titanic, that content is just as good in its sphere as Washington’s war date letter is in his. When good content is present, it matters little whether a letter is completely handwritten and signed by the sender, or was signed by him though typed out or secretarially written.

Good content is equally key in manuscripts. An original draft of a chapter from Alice in Wonderland in the hand of its author, C.L. Dodgson, may safely be said to have good content. Some of his notes relating to the mathematics books he wrote would have medium content. His shopping list would have low content. A quotation of Jefferson Davis containing his legal justification for secession has good content, while his endorsement as Secretary of War recommending that someone supply blankets to the U.S. Army has low content (but if he was instead recommending the appointment of a person who later served the Confederacy, the content would be medium). When George Gershwin composes a musical manuscript, that's the most creative content imaginable. If he wrote out a few bars of music, content would be medium. If he gave an account of a minor business transaction, content would be low. When a Revolutionary War soldier writes a journal relating his experiences and tells what he heard Washington say while directing his troops at Monmouth, that's good content. If he wrote instead about the hard times the army was experiencing, the content would be medium. If, as often happens in diaries, he mainly commented on the weather, content would be low. As with letters, good content does not mean the same thing as expensive. A brief reminder Mozart wrote so he would remember a meeting would be very expensive but have no content, while a diary from Woodstock might have great content and not be costly. Unlike letters, many manuscripts are unsigned, and collectors certainly prefer signed items. The rule is that the better the manuscript’s content, the less it matters if a signature is absent. If Pres. Polk left a detailed, handwritten account of the foreign policy measures that led to war with Mexico, the absence of his signature would scarcely be noticed. However, on more routine handwritten manuscripts, a missing signature can be a real detriment. This is even truer of typed manuscripts, as if the entire paper is typed and there is neither annotation nor signature, there is really no autograph. Unsigned manuscripts such as speeches and drafts need to have some significant handwritten content to be valuable autographically, unless they are intrinsically important.

Documents often evidence a key moment in history or were the cause or result of a memorable event. Although few documents have content, some memorable ones do. The Declaration of Independence contains statements on individual rights and the purpose of government, and the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession spells out the causes for the breaking up of the Union. Thomas Edison's patent papers for his invention of the phonograph have detailed technical content. Even a simple check would have content, if it evidenced a payoff being made from a gangster to one of the Black Sox in 1919. Generally, however, documents do not have content in the same way as letters or manuscripts. More frequently, they rely on intrinsic importance.

We now consider intrinsic importance, which may exist in the absence of content. Intrinsic means “of a thing’s essence”, so to qualify for inclusion here, what the autograph says is of secondary interest, but the paper itself must be important. A letter of John Adams as vice president acknowledging his receipt of the electoral votes for the 1792 presidential election, sent to him for counting, may say little, but is intrinsically important. A U.S. Supreme Court decision signed by John Marshall may just recite some dry facts, but also has intrinsic importance. A simple receipt signed by Meriwether Lewis has intrinsic importance, so long as it acknowledges receiving his pay for the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Abraham Lincoln's appointment of Ulysses S. Grant to command the Union Army is intrinsically important. Sometimes the most routine autographs have had a big impact on history and can meet this standard. A brief letter inviting President McKinley to visit the Pan American Exposition would have low content, but would be intrinsically important, as he was assassinated there. Similarly, a note from Charles Bartlett inviting Senator John F. Kennedy to dinner at his house in 1951 would have low content, but since that was where JFK met his wife Jacqueline, it would be on the boundary of having importance. And as with good content, intrinsic importance and expensive are not synonyms. A receipt signed by Benjamin Franklin may be expensive but lacks any claim to importance, while Calvin Coolidge’s appointment of Dwight Morrow to head the Aviation Board (which first set U.S. aviation policy) would be important and yet not cost very much.

Gradations of Autograph Values

Within each of the primary autograph formats (letters, manuscripts and documents), there are four identifiable price levels. Three of these track the gradations of content and intrinsic importance discussed above; one goes a step farther. It is noteworthy that the distinctions we are making are not the same as those found in most publications that concern autographs, such as price guides, which rely on whether an item is an ALS, TLS, or DS (we find these categories minimally relevant). As an example of how this is true, an ALS of a person is generally considered to be worth more than a TLS of that person. Yet, without doubt, a good content TLS is of greater interest and is more valuable than a low content ALS every time.

To illustrate our point about price gradations, let’s assess four actual letters of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. A TLS concerning a minor business transaction had low content and sold for $1,800; it was not interesting and showed us nothing about Churchill. A letter to the Canadian House of Commons saying farewell at the end of his illustrious career had medium content, as it related directly to his public service yet made no important statements; it sold for $4,400. A TLS defending his controversial role in World War I had good content and dealt with a subject that mattered; it fetched over $10,000 at auction. Now to introduce the fourth price gradation - for an autograph that is of outstanding importance. We once had a TLS as World War II Prime Minister revealing this fearless man's fear; not for his personal safety, but that the Americans would be angered with Britain (and perhaps accelerate the schedule for D-Day and launch before the Allied armed forces were ready). It sold for $30,000.

It is likewise for manuscripts. A low content Theodore Roosevelt typescript with a few handwritten notes would be worth $400. A similar example with some interesting holograph content about his opposition to corruption would have medium content and sell for $2,500. A signed, handwritten quote about the duties of citizenship would have good content and be worth about $5,000. In the outstanding category, we had a portion of the original typed manuscript of the speech he gave to his Bull Moose loyalists in June 1912, urging them on to the fight. It contained his copious handwritten revisions but was not signed; even in this incomplete state, it brought $20,000. As another example, a Civil War soldier’s low content diary would be worth $1,000. If there were some decent descriptions of activity, it would become medium content and rise to $3,500. We recently sold a diary with fine battle content for $9,000, and have an important, outstanding five-volume war date journal that served as the basis of a published book which might well bring over ten times that amount.

The same principle holds true for documents. A business receipt signed by John Hancock is lower grade and would bring at most $3,000. An appointment of a militia officer, signed by him as governor of Massachusetts, is more interesting (thus medium grade) and might fetch $4,500. Military appointments Hancock signed as president of the Continental Congress, many dated in the magic year of 1776, are a definite step up to good grade and should sell for about $10,000. However, where they commission an officer who made a notable contribution to the Revolutionary War effort, they have some intrinsic importance as well, and begin to climb towards the outstanding category. One at the bottom of that category would be worth $14,000-18,000, depending mainly on the appointee’s prominence and service. Hancock's appointment of Benedict Arnold as major general came on the market in 2002, and at the top of the outstanding grade, sold for $75,000. The importance of the document thus accounts for the spread between $3,000 and $75,000.

Here's another instance which you can categorize yourself. A Franklin Pierce document signed as president ordering the Secretary of State to affix the great seal of the United States to a pardon for small-time burglar Joe Doaks, would be hard pressed to command $700. Yet his original appointment of Francis Scott Key's son Philip as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, which led to a scandal and resulted in the younger Key's murder on a public street in Washington, sold readily for $2,500. You can see how importance accounted for the difference in price.

How This Applies to Signed Photographs and Books

Many people collect signed photographs, and even here our concepts of content and intrinsic importance hold true. We always start with the perhaps surprising proposition that photographs inscribed to a named individual are best. One reason this is preferable is that the more handwriting there is on the photograph, the more certain the determination of authenticity can be. However, the added writing is also laden with possibilities for content. Perhaps the inscription will reveal something significant about the writer, as when Harry Truman signs the famous photograph showing him holding the Chicago Tribune (with its premature headline 'Dewey Defeats Truman’), with a statement that “this was a memorable moment”. It may also illustrate something interesting about the relationship between the signer and the recipient, as in a photograph we once had that was inscribed by Warren Harding to his corrupt Veteran's Bureau administrator, Charles Forbes. It was full of expressions of trust and praise, emotions that showed Harding’s view of the men’s relationship, but which were repaid by Forbes with betrayal. Signed photographs with such inscriptions can have medium or even good content; they are much more valuable than similar uninscribed pictures. These same rules apply to inscriptions in signed books.

With signed photographs, what they show can be as important as what they say, as the image is a form of content. A signed portrait photograph of Franklin D. Roosevelt as governor of New York would be worth $1,000 or so, while one as president might sell for $2,000. However, if the photograph pictures FDR signing a bill into law, the value would rise to at least $4,000. A signed photograph of him delivering his first inaugural address or war message to Congress would easily jump to $15,000 or even $20,000, if you could find a real one. The Truman photograph illustrated above is another case in point. A signed portrait shot of HST in older age would sell for $500, one as President for $1,000, and the terrific ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ signed picture in the range of $5,000.

Looking at signed books, we leave aside the possibility that the book may be a first edition or itself be valuable, and concentrate just on the autograph. The analogous criteria in the case of a book would be the importance of the book within the context of the author's work. A copy of The White Company signed by Arthur Conan Doyle would be lucky to fetch $800, as few people read that book today. One of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes should sell for over $10,000, as that is considered his best book and Holmes remains immensely popular. A signed copy of F. Scott Fitzgerald's still-read The Great Gatsby might be worth $15,000, while one of the seldom-read All the Sad Young Men could bring $3,500. Here, too, the inscribee can be important. If the latter book was inscribed “To my astonishing wife Zelda”, the value would rise by many times.

The Impact of Condition on Prices

Another factor affecting the value of autographs is condition. A significant condition problem will reduce the value of an autograph, even one of high quality. I want to stress, however, that a condition problem needs to be serious in order to affect value. I am not in agreement with people who avoid autographs with small flaws or limit their collecting to perfect examples (ones, for some reason, they always call “pristine”). They are all mixed up about what really matters, and seem to me to be chasing a phantom of perfection unconnected to the autograph, the history it represents or its true worth. Two examples will illustrate my point. Recently a collector contacted us looking for an Edison letter, and we had a very good one. After initially being excited, he turned it down because it had been folded too many times (it did, after all, have to fit into the small envelopes Edison liked to use). Another person admired an extraordinary and very uncommon World War I era signed photograph of Winston Churchill. The picture and signature were perfect, but he passed because of a small crease at the upper left hand corner of the mat (one that I hadn’t even noticed until he pointed it out). In my personal collection are autographs in a variety of conditions; I am much more concerned with the item than its condition, unless the problem is serious.

Some examples will illustrate the impact significant condition problems can have. A good content letter of George Washington written during the Revolutionary War, in fine condition, might be worth $45,000. Now add a large water stain that detracts and it may drop to $23,000. If there is also a piece missing that causes the loss of a few key words, it might fetch $12,000. As the Bard said, “What a falling off was there!” And not even content could prevent the fall. A ship’s passport signed by Thomas Jefferson as president and James Madison as secretary of state would be worth about $6,500 in fine condition. If there is some discoloring, that might lessen to $4,000. If Jefferson’s signature is light due to significant mildew, the price could be $2,000 or even less.

It must be noted that there are three exceptions to this analysis on the role of condition, and they are often related: uniqueness, extraordinary importance and true rarity. If the Washington letter in our example was addressed to the Continental Congress and accepted its offer of the supreme command of the American army, then it would be both unique and extraordinarily important (to say the least), and be desirable regardless of condition. A somewhat faded letter of Robert E. Lee to George Meade that crossed the battle lines at Gettysburg, in which he asked about the safety of a Mississippi colonel wounded in Pickett’s Charge, would be an example of uniqueness (as no other such letter exists in private hands) without extraordinary importance. It would generate excitement despite condition. An example of extraordinary importance without uniqueness would be a stained letter of William Henry Harrison issuing his first battle orders as Commander-in-Chief of the American western army in the War of 1812. Two or three identical signed copies containing the orders were sent out to make sure that one would arrive. As for true rarity, I am not referring to autographs that are merely uncommon and nice to find, like Civil War date ALS’s of Stonewall Jackson. I mean autographs like those of Columbus or Shakespeare, where just finding one would be a news-making event.

Misrepresented Quality and Rarity

Sadly, it is not uncommon to find sellers of autographs who are not satisfied with the lily they have and try to gild it. They will praise the most routine letter as having good (if not great) content, label as important the most mundane manuscript, say a stained document is in choice extra fine condition, and tack the label “rare” onto everything they sell. Logically, we know that a letter simply turning down a speaking invitation cannot be considered interesting, no less have good content. Presidents signed untold thousands of documents appointing postmasters, and one naming John Doe the postmaster of Podunk cannot be important regardless of how it is labeled. A manuscript that is torn and stained is simply not in choice or fine condition. And very few items are actually rare. Some dealers and auctions cannot seem to avoid slanting or mischaracterizing almost everything they offer in these ways. One of my customers bought a routine content ALS of Benjamin Franklin from a dealer who characterized it as rare (thus adding the implicit pressure that the buyer needed to act now before someone else took it). Yet on this same dealer’s web site were listed other Franklin ALS’s that he had for sale or had recently carried (and those were just the Franklin letters he had. Who knows how many had been on the market all told). How he could call something rare under such circumstances is beyond me. Skepticism must therefore be the starting point in assessing representations.

It is true that not all calls about content and importance are clear-cut. For instance, if Alexander Graham Bell makes a passing reference to the telephone in a letter on another subject, does the letter have good content? If Jefferson mentions the Declaration of Independence in a letter about something else, does that? I would need to see the letters to make a judgment, but suspect that my answer as to Bell would be no and as to Jefferson, yes.

PART II - Authenticating Autographs

The Eternal Question: “How Do You Know It’s Real?”

Decades ago when a colleague first started out as an autograph dealer, he tells of sharing a booth at an antique market with a man who sold fine antique furniture. His prize piece at the time was a document signed by John Hancock, gorgeously framed and priced at $500. People admired his autographs, the Hancock in particular, but almost never failed to ask how he knew they were authentic. At the same time, people would buy chairs and bureaus from the other man for thousands of dollars, and never once ask him how he knew they were real. This experience has proven true for us as well: always, the first question about an autograph is, how do you know it is real?

This is a valid concern because so many autographs offered for sale are not authentic though they are claimed to be. When I was an excited new collector, the first things I bought were forgeries. A hotshot baseball dealer sold me purported signed photographs of Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson for $300 (if real they would have been worth $6,000 even then. Later I discovered what an unbelievable rarity a signed picture of Mathewson would be). I practiced law for 22 years before determining to devote full time to the autograph business. As a lawyer, you learn to dig for facts, accept what the evidence shows (rather than what you hope to be true), and be skeptical and not just believe whatever you are told (even if you like the people doing the telling). I applied these lessons in the autograph field, and investigated these baseball autographs. I determined that they were not authentic, pursued the seller until I got my money back, but did not become discouraged. I searched for and found dealers I could trust, learned the tell-tale signs of the crooks, and remained a collector.

10 Steps of Authentication

How do I know an autograph is authentic? It may be hard to believe, but you have the ability to determine for yourself whether most autographs are authentic. Here are the steps you should take to authenticate an autograph:

Step No. 1: Apply the Burden of Proof.

Many people start with the idea that an autograph is authentic and look further only if they are suspicious. This is backwards. You must begin with the premise that an autograph is not authentic and make it prove itself. In assessing this proof, we disregard representations of sellers and ignore sales pitches. Only an autograph that can prove itself outside the claims can be said to meet this burden. As an aspect of this rule, we avoid buying items with minimal handwriting, unless we know both their original source and see the material in its original place. If I have any doubt whatever, we pass.

Step No. 2: Ascertain the Provenance

Provenance. Look at the first six letters; they spell “proven.” Provenance means just that - proving where the autograph came from. And as strange as it may seem, this is very often the most important factor in authenticating an autograph. Knowing that a letter came from a reliable collection or dealer, and that it has an identifiable history, means everything to establishing a level of comfort. If it comes from a famous collection of the past, such as the Philip Sang or Jerome Kern collections, all the better. As an illustration, some time back I bought a very rare document in the hand of the Puritan apostle to the Indians, John Eliot. It was dated 1645 and was docketed as approved and signed on the front by John Winthrop. The paper and ink were right and the writing checked out, but the incredibly early date and unique combination of signatures caused someone to question the document. When research showed that it came from the Sang collection, which was put together half a century ago and carefully authenticated by the greatest experts of the time, everyone took that as proof positive it was authentic and the debate ended then and there. Knowing that a letter of Lincoln is printed in Basler’s The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln is a good way of proving that a letter may be genuine (or, if the letter is published and the source is listed as an institution, of indicating that the letter was stolen).

But not every autograph can come from a great collection, so it is necessary to establish a more generally applicable rule for what provenance is sufficient. The existence of a letter or notation claiming to describe the circumstances under which an autograph was obtained is just a claim, not a provenance. Likewise, a statement by an auction house or dealer that an autograph comes from the noted Joe Schmo collection is likewise a claim, absent tangible, independent evidence that: a) such a collection existed; b) there is evidence of its reliability; and c) this item was part of it. Every forgery seems to come with a story, and forgers use the techniques of providing cooked up “provenance” letters and inventing collections to tout to deceive the unwary. To establish valid provenance, we must look at the entire history of an item, including where it originated, and determine which dealers sold it in the past. The story behind it should be provable and not just a mere claim. Only then can an item be said to have true provenance.

Explanatory letters that come with autographs are unreliable because, even when the writers are honest, they can make innocent but very misleading errors. I once saw a situation where a girl at a 1963 Beatles concert gave a program to their road manager to have autographed. She observed the Beatles enter their dressing room, saw him take it in and then return with it signed ten minutes later. Her long and honest letter about her attendance at the concert and getting the program signed left out what she never knew - that their road manager, Neil Aspinwall, had expertly forged the Beatles’ signatures behind the closed dressing room door. One other example: Jean Harlow. I met a 90 year old woman who swore that Harlow had signed an autograph for her personally, but when questioned further admitted that someone took the album or photograph to be signed into her dressing room and then returned it with a Harlow signature. Harlow’s mother signed virtually everything for Jean, and so it was here.

Provenance is less significant in items that have a lot of handwriting and/or would be difficult or very challenging to forge (such as an ALS of Andrew Jackson). It is, however, absolutely crucial when trying to authenticate signatures that can be easily forged. A story will illustrate how we apply our provenance rules in practice. I have always been interested in the early days of rock and roll, and sought for decades (without success) to find autographs of such great groups as the Platters and the Danleers. Then, suddenly, a collection of the very autographs I was looking for came up at auction, in the form of signed album leafs. Though very skeptical of musical and entertainment signatures at auction, I was urged to go down to see the material, and I did. First of all, there were well over 1,000 autograph albums from 1947 to 1980, all filled with hundreds of thousands of signatures of people in all fields of interest, and all still in their original places within the albums. The albums showed the proper wear for their age and the ink and pencil showed the proper aging. The signatures with which I had experience or for which I had examples matched wonderfully. Nobody could have forged that many signatures and made everything look so right. But even that was not enough, as I needed to know the originator. The collector, Joe Forrest, had recently died, but the auction house introduced me to Mrs. Forrest and one of Joe’s friends, enabling me to hear a history of Joe and learn about his collection. So I had seen the entire collection in its original place, met the consignor and the autographs checked out. This gave the Joe Forrest collection all the provenance it needed and I bought a good portion of it. But beware. I expect in the future for bad guys to offer forged individual album leafs, claiming they were from the Forrest collection.
Step No. 3: Check Consistency with Authentic Examples

Compare the autograph with published authentic examples. These examples should be contained in universally recognized reference books, not in self-serving places like auction catalogs. Nobody should be buying autographs who has not at least begun to compile a library of authentic examples, and read some basic books on autographs and how to collect them. The late Charles Hamilton wrote quite a number; some are still in print and the others are findable at used book stores in the “books about books” category. We have written five, and other fine ones are on the market. Do not overlook non-autograph resources. We found the best sample of Eva Peron’s handwriting in a letter published in a biography. Without good examples at your fingertips, you can’t start judging autographs for yourself.

Step No. 4: Make Sure the Paper, Pen and Ink Are Right

The manufacture, physical makeup and sizes of paper have differed over the years. Letters of Washington, Franklin and others of their generation were almost never written on paper smaller than about 8 by 10 inches. Often the paper was actually 8 by 20 inches, and folded so that there were four sides total. You sometimes see letters on slightly smaller sheets from Jefferson’s administration on. Small notepaper size stationery made its appearance about 1840 and was the paper of choice from 1860 until about 1900 when stationery assumed its present size. Parchment was reserved for documents and religious manuscripts. Paper made before around 1820 was “laid” paper, and held up to the light will show parallel lines throughout, like ribbing, where it had been laid on a rack. Much paper manufactured between about 1840 and 1890 had little embossed imprints of the manufacturer, or occasionally stationer, usually at the upper left corner. Watermarks were widely used in paper manufactured before the advent of cheap woodpulp-based paper, which began in the mid-19th century, and they persisted in high quality papers (and still persist to the present day). A fair number of watermarks actually contain the date of manufacture; others have different but equally valuable information. As an example, some war date letters of Washington have a picture of Britannia as a watermark, establishing the era of their manufacture and providing a wonderful irony. There are books on watermarks, so they can also be used in many cases to date the paper.

Another point to remember is that envelopes didn’t come into general use until the late 1840’s. Prior to that, letters were folded up to a size approximating today’s small envelopes and addressed on the back. The address panel might be in a space about 4 by 5 inches. The folds were then sealed with wax, sometimes using a seal with the writer’s coat of arms or initials. A good rule of thumb would be to be very cautious about a letter prior to 1840 which was never folded. Since envelopes came in, they have been smaller than the letters they contained, so if a post-1840 letter was never folded make sure there is a good explanation (for example, a cover letter enclosing photographs might have been sent in a large mailer and not needed folding).

Quill pens, with their scratchy and uneven flow, were the pen of choice for centuries. The fountain pen became practical, and came into common use, with invention of the Waterman pen in 1884. It was a mainstay until it was replaced by the ballpoint pen. Ballpoints enjoyed a fad about 1950, then faded, and only came to dominate the pen market about 1955. The felt tip pen was invented in 1962 but did not come into common use for some years after that. Fine-line and permanent markers were first seen in the 1970's, and superfine-points gained popularity in the 1990's. Each of these pens lays down a very distinctive, instantly recognizable flow of ink. Beware of any autograph whose ink does not fit into this timeline (like a ballpoint signature of FDR). Pencils first reached the American market in 1812, but their popularity grew significantly with the Civil War (meaning it makes sense to avoid pencil signatures of Washington or Franklin). Inks before about 1850 were generally brownish, and as they were iron-based, over the years some types have literally rusted (which causes them to eat into the paper to a greater or lesser extent). Blue ink was not used much before about 1850. Some forgers buy old books, remove the blank pages, and write their forgeries on them using brown ink. Thus, the paper and ink look about right. However, paper loses its “size” over the years, and the strands of cloth in older paper separate a bit, so modern ink applied to old paper will be absorbed slightly and will blur. So watch out for blurriness.

Step No. 5: Assess Dissimilarities and Idiosyncracies in the Writing

You cannot authenticate autographs simply by finding similarities in the writing. Bear in mind that up until a few decades ago, children had to take a course in school called penmanship and they were taught from essentially the same books. Therefore if you look at handwritings of different 18th century Americans, you will find many similarities in the ways they make their individual letters. Take President John Adams as an example. If he made 24 of his 26 letters the same way as the John Adams who wrote the letter you are trying to authenticate, avoid the conclusion that the two writers must be the same person. It’s the differences, not the similarities, that matter. Understanding that handwritings of a particular era will have a similar appearance, the consistent difference in even one or two specific letters between accepted examples and a letter you are authenticating is a telling point (the more so if the examples are of about the same date). Fortunately, in comparisons, there will usually be at least several individual letters that are consistently different, so you need not rely on only one variation. So, similarities are easy to find. It’s finding the differences that will tell you if you are dealing with a letter of a famous person, or merely a person with the same name. The principal is the same when dealing with forgeries - rely on the dissimilarities, not the similarities.

There’s another important aspect to this step. If you look carefully, almost every person has something very distinctive about his or her handwriting. These unique characteristics can manifest themselves in many ways, such as the formation of specific letters, the slant or rise and fall of the writing, the connections between words or the breaks within the words. For example, Lincoln wrote his last name on three planes, stepping upward; Babe Ruth’s “e” has an unusual sideways tilt; Winston Churchill’s “W” has sharp bottom points. Fortunately, these idiosyncracies are very difficult to forge well, so their identification is of great importance. We look for them right away.

Step No. 6: Do a Forgery-Avoidence Inspection

The next step in authenticating is simply, does it look right and natural? Sign your own name a few times and look at other things your friends or relatives have signed. The signatures might be illegible, but they will all have a flow to them. The letters will not be lumpy or odd shaped (in a way no one would naturally write them), nor look labored or as if they were drawn with care. Signatures that look drawn or just unnatural should be avoided.
Then check for inappropriate irregularities in the writing. Shakiness is one of the surest signs of a forgery. There is no reason for a person’s signature to be shaky unless they are suffering from Parkinson’s Disease (like Stephen Hopkins and Charles Ives) or are greatly advanced in age. If a signature looks even a bit shaky, beware. Next check for signature breaks and hesitations. Sign your name a number of times. Almost certainly, you signed smoothly each time (without stopping to take stock in the middle of writing any signature), left spaces or breaks between your letters and words in the same places every time, and stopped or trailed off in the same way. It’s no different with a famous person. So watch out for hesitations anywhere within the writing. As for breaks, they should generally be at the same places in multiple examples, and thus should be consistant with the authentic samples you are using for comparison. Most people break between their first and last names (though I do not), and some break within the individual words (Franklin Roosevelt’s autograph seems like nothing but a series of unlikely breaks between the letters). An experiment will show you how important breaks are to analysis. Sign your name a few more times. Then try breaking your signature in a few unusual places. Hard to do, and surely not something you would do sometimes and not others. Yet it is necessary to note that there are a few exceptions - people who are consistant in having certain predictable, inconsistant breaks as part of their signature pattern (F.D.R. sometimes joined the “s” to the “e” in Roosevelt and sometimes did not). Endings also provide useful information. Andrew Jackson always seemed to end his signature with a flourish, while Lyndon Johnson preferred a line stretching off quite a distance. Most people have some smooth final touch. The forger, needing to be careful, often stops rather abruptly or awkwardly at the end of the signature he is forging.

Now consider spacing and angularity. Recently I saw two photographs on the internet. One of Abbott and Costello, with both signatures and an inscription, exhibited numerous tell-tale signs of a forgery: the writing was lumpy and unbalanced, it looked like each word had been carefully done, one at a time, rather than there being a smooth flow of words, and the breaks failed to match those in authentic examples. But the presence of the additional handwriting enabled me to spot even more forgery factors. There were different amounts of space between the words and the writing slanted, first at one angle and then at another. Take a piece of paper and write “To Sarah, with very best wishes and regards, from John Smith.” The line of your writing will be straight or have a uniform slant, and the words will be evenly spaced, probably close together. The second forgery was of Lon Chaney, Jr.; it was reasonably well done but gave itself away. The forger started the signature with large, flowing letters, but as the writing came ever closer to Chaney’s image and threatened to cross over onto Chaney’s face (and ruin the pretty picture), the letters became tighter and tighter. The end of Chaney’s name was crammed in between the face and the start of the first name. So also beware of inscriptions which look squeezed, aren’t straight, or which have irregular spacing.

We will do an in-depth analysis of forgeries in a subsequent section.

Step No. 7: Check for Autopens

The autopen is a machine that uses a real pen and real ink to draw an exact replica of an autograph. The owner makes templates with different examples of his signature. His secretary inserts one or the other of them into the machine, which signs the correspondence. Autopens have been in general use since the late 1940’s, mainly by presidents, public officials, astronauts, and others who have just too much correspondence to personally sign. The autopen is a real problem because use of a template created by the signatory means that the autograph looks just like his actual signature. The only saving grace is that each template signs each signature the exact same way
time after time, so a comparison is all that is needed. If two signatures of a person are the same size and identical or virtually so, they are presumptive autopen examples and should be avoided. There are several books with facsimiles of most known autopen patterns from 1947 (when Eisenhower started using one) until 1988, when the last book was published.

Ike began resorting to autopens extensively in the White House, and John F. Kennedy did so at the beginning of his presidential campaign in 1959. Most presidents who followed have used it for routine letters, sometimes even for important ones. Nixon had a number of patterns and used them extensively (it’s safe to assume that of every 100 letters, documents and photographs signed by Nixon as president, just a few of them will prove genuine). Since, unfortunately, not all autopen patterns have been published (or are even known), and the reference books are out of date, with all presidential signatures from 1953 on, the rule is, assume that any but the most important letters and documents are autopens if they lack additional handwriting to validate them. I know we turn down some good letters that way, but believe in discretion being the better part of valor, and prefer that to buying ones which may prove in time to be autopens.

How can the average collector tell an autopen when he has no appropriate reference books? Look closely at the signature for any signs of shakiness, as the machine often leaves autographs with a slightly tremulous look.Some autopens (particularly in the earlier years) left little deposits of extra ink at the beginning and end of names or at breaks, where the machine stopped in its track. Numerous autopen patterns are more legible than the person’s typical signature, so if you can read every letter of a signature usually found more as a scribble (Nixon and Lyndon Johnson are cases in point), that indicates an autopen. Although some newer autopens include a formulaic, impersonal greeting in addition to the signature, fortunately none to date inscribe an item to a specific individual or write any individualized content. Thus, extra writing beyond such a greeting precludes the finding of an autopen. For this reason, we often favor inscriptions on photographs and other items signed after 1960. By the way, since a jolt to the machine moves the pen, there can be slight differences beween signatures using the same pattern. I recently authenticated two documents signed by Eisenhower as president, one of which lacked a dot over the “i” while the other had it. These had been sold to a client by a dealer who claimed that this difference meant they could not be autopens, which is just not true. They were, as you can see for yourself.

Step No. 8: Assess for Evidence of Secretaries or Stamps

Secretarial signatures have been around for hundreds of years. A lot of documents supposedly signed by kings of France up through at least Louis XVI were signed by their secretaries. American presidents after 1834 had secretaries sign land grants, and some did a creditable job (the secretaries of Pierce, Buchanan and Arthur were masters at duplicating the president’s real signature). Aside from land grants, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover had at least one skilled secretary each who could sign their names. FDR made use of secretaries to sign for him before his presidency only. Eisenhower had secretaries during World War II and as president, JFK had perhaps a dozen, and from then on each president seems to have had several secretaries who could forge his signature. Those of Nixon, Johnson and Carter were particularly adept; the proliferation of secretarial signatures indicates that LBJ and Nixon preferred using secretaries to autopens. Fortunately, with secretarial signatures, as with autopens, once secretaries learn to sign, they sign in similar fashion every time.

Consequently, if there is a dissimilarity between the secretarial and the genuine signature, the secretarial will generally show that same dissimilarity in each example. Also like autopens, secretarial signatures are invariably neater than the authentic ones would be. By the way, in a few cases, notables seem to have planted a “key” to distinguish authentic from secretarial examples: Lyndon B. Johnson put a dot under the letter “B” when he himself signed and Jefferson Davis’s wife added a period after the name when she signed for her husband.

Stamps also have a long history. Henry VIII had a steel stamp made of his signature which he put on routine documents, and some Spanish monarchs did likewise. William Penn had a stamp. So did a number of presidents, including Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Silent movie stars used them widely. Beware of movie star photographs from 1930 or before that have inscriptions like “best wishes” but do not have a personalization, like “To Joe.” Rudolph Valentino in particular liked to use stamps and had several with long but not personalized inscriptions, two in Italian and one in English. Hattie McDaniel also wielded a stamp, even to the extent of stamping autograph albums in front of the owners. But, of course, there was never any kind of personalization on these.

How can you identify stamped signatures? Often they are in light blue or purple ink and have a flat and washed-out look. They may also have air bubbles throughout. Take a look at real handwriting: the ink flows smoothly, there are no air bubbles or breaks in the flow, and the ink generally looks a little shiny. If you have a decent magnifying glass, you should be able to see crossovers - those tracks of ink where, for instance, the crossbar crosses the “t”, or where any pen line crosses another. Also, you may see the actual pen strokes and where the nib made an impression in the paper. Do you have a stamp of any kind? If so, use it, and then look carefully. It has all the opposite characteristics.

Step No. 9: Assess for Evidence of Facsimile

This word often used to be written fac-simile. It comes from the Latin “facere” (to make) and “similis” (like), and means an exact copy of something. A facsimile we have all seen is that of the Declaration of Independence on fake parchment, the kind sold in souvenir shops. Facsimiles can pose as much of a problem as forgeries to the novice collector, and even to some more experienced ones. They were often published as souvenirs to honor a person or event, without ever intending to fool anybody into thinking they were real. The problem is that many facsimiles have been around for decades (over 150 years in some cases), and consequently have that aged look about them that can fool any but an expert. Here are the issues.

a. Printed facsimiles. Many of them were bound in books, and have fallen out (or been purposely taken out) over the years. There are some famous facsimiles. We are offered one of the Gettysburg Address at least once every year by someone who thinks he has found a nugget of gold instead of a worthless copy. Others include: a letter of Lord Byron to his publisher, Gagliani, denying that he ever wrote The Vampire. This facsimile was inserted as an illustration in a very early edition of Byron’s works, and over the past 150 years has taken on an aged appearance; a letter by Sir Walter Scott to the publisher Charles Tilt, referring to himself as the author of the Waverly Tales. It is dated 1830 but is on paper clearly watermarked 1834; a letter of Benjamin Franklin sending seeds to a friend, often with the seeds included (this was a promotion done by a seed company a century ago); a letter of Thomas Jefferson to Craven Peyton on minor banking matters, often with the “original” envelope (and remember earlier I said that envelopes weren't used during Jefferson's lifetime). This was a 1920's advertising promotion for a Virginia bank; and Lincoln's letter to Mrs. Bixby commiserating with her over the loss of her five sons (the facsimile is actually one of a forgery!).

Not long ago a man in Virginia called and said he had a signed copy of Robert E. Lee's Order No.9, his farewell to his troops, which Lee had given to General Stephens. A couple of dozen genuine examples of Order No. 9 exist, signed by Lee for his officers and soldiers, so new ones could conceivably turn up. However, a high quality facsimile was published over 50 years ago by the Lakeside Press, using as the master an original given to Gen. Stephens. The Lakeside version is done on bluish-gray paper and actually bears the printed name of the press in very light white print at the lower right of the back side. In this man’s case the paper was blue and the recipient was Stephens, so the diagnosis of facsimile was easy. To cement the determination, this man noted that someone had clipped out the press name from the bottom of his document. Another time, a facsimile of Washington's letter to John Langdon effectively accepting the presidency was offered to us, this time badly burned in a supposedly accidental fire. The location of the famous original of this letter is known, so there was no problem in recognizing this as a facsimile, although it came with a good story and the fake fire damage.

Illustrated letters were not the only sites of facsimiles in books. Many of Mark Twain’s earlier works have facsimile statements by him in the front. The most infamous of inscribed books is Grant’s Memoirs. On the flyleaf appears a dedication inscription to the “Soldiers of the United States”, with a facsimile signature. These are constantly mistaken for genuine inscriptions and signatures, and even telling the owners that the books weren’t published until after Grant’s death doesn’t deter some of them. Perhaps the most notable facsimiles are the steel engraved portraits of famous people made during the 19th century and found in books of that period. These engravings have facsimile signatures of the people below their portraits. The autographs were patterned after authentic examples and have been fooling people ever since. They are invariably in uniform black ink, are almost always centered under the images, and often have the embossed (raised) lettering one finds in fine business cards today.

b. Photographically reproduced facsimiles. In this process, the original of an item (usually a photograph) is authentically signed, often in colored ink, and photographic copies are made of it and distributed. When this process is done well, these can be very hard to spot, and when placed under a magnifying glass exhibit all the markings of an authentic signature. Hitler sent a very high quality photographic facsimile as a Christmas card in 1944. However, they usually appear to be what they are - photographs of something rather than the thing itself. The most common examples were 3 by 5 and 5 by 7 inch photographs sent out for stars by movie studios (mostly from about 1920 to 1950) which have white “signatures” as part of the photos. These are usually relatively simple to tell, as they appear flat, there’s no ink on the photograph and they are in a neat, secretarial handwriting. Another type of photographic facsimile used in Hollywood has printed or reverse-embossed signatures pressed in, leaving an indentation often filled in with blue ink.

c. Salutations. Watch out for letters with the salutation “Dear Friend”, and letters with no salutation. These are the hallmark of letters that are either all in facsimile, or typed with facsimile signatures. King George V’s facsimile letter welcoming American troops to Europe in World War I (millions were given out) began simply “Soldiers and Sailors of the Allied Expeditionary Forces.” Winston Churchill offers another fine example. In his later years, he received literally thousands of good wishes on his birthdays. Desiring to be polite, he had facsimile letters sent out in thanks for those wishes. He handwrote one, then that letter was lithographed, often in blue ink, and the reproductions sent out all over the world. Harry Truman and Herbert Hoover did the same thing. The tipoff to most of these facsimile letters is the salutation or better yet the lack of one. Churchill’s facsimiles had no salutation; on his actual correspondence, like most Englishmen, he generally wrote the entire salutation out by hand. A good rule of thumb here is, if you see a letter, either handwritten or typed, which begins impersonally, or has a generalized salutation like “Dear Friend,” unless the recipient is a Quaker, assume it’s not authentic and act accordingly.

d. Form letters. Such letters, even those which have a typed personalization, were very frequently “signed” with facsimile signatures. The signatures can be in ink of a different color than the typing and can be very deceiving. There is a famous facsimile letter of Einstein about atomic energy which appears “typed” in black ink and “signed” in blue. We see at least one offered by some dealer or auction house every year or so, often with very high price tags. You can usually tell a form letter - it could have been sent to anyone, and usually relates either to fund raising or a political campaign or cause. One way of telling a form letter, if you are not sure, is that quite often before say 1960, the salutation will not be aligned at the left with the rest of the text. Some other form letters to watch out for are those of Helen Keller and Martin Luther King. Even if the signature on a form letter is real, as happens once in a blue moon, I believe that the letter is worth less than a non-form letter from the same person, even though the content of the form letter is “dynamite.” After all, they were sent out in mass mailings, lack uniqueness and may have been authored by a professional ad writer rather than the signer.

e. Letters or inscriptions to groups. When you see a photograph or letter of a famous person inscribed to a group or organization, be careful, as quite often facsimiles were made of the original to give to all the members. One example would be a photograph of Harry Truman inscribed “To Lodge 275 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.” Yet there are also authentic pieces in this category. Items inscribed to small groups, such as “To Mrs. Newman’s history class,” are unlikely to have been reproduced in facsimile. Some notables, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, liked to write congratulatory letters to groups (such as the Boy Scouts) on their anniversaries. The originals are out there for sale, as are the facsimiles. If in doubt, pass it by.

f. Definitive determinations. As with stamped signatures, an excellent way to spot facsimiles is the lack of crossover indications and pen strokes. Also, since they are printed, there are often tiny air bubbles which appear as white flecks throughout the inked portions; these are not found in the ink flow of genuine writing. To authenticate a particularly difficult case, you might have to use a tiny bit of bleach on the writing, always on the most obscure portion possible using a toothpick or, as I do, the tip of an unbent paper clip. In this way you can get just a teeny tiny droplet. The bleach will immediately lighten if not totally remove ink that comes from a pen, but has minimal effect on printer’s ink. However, never use bleach if it can be avoided, as it can do serious damage.

Step 10: Consider Special Factors

a. Photographs. The first photographs of people were taken about 1845. They measured about 2 by 4 inches and were used in place of calling cards. When a person visited another’s home and found the homeowner out, he would leave the photograph there as evidence of the attempted visit. As a consequence, these photographs were called “carte de visites”, or “visiting cards”. They remained popular until about 1865 when they were replaced by a larger type of photograph meant for keeping in albums which in turn were kept in cabinets. These were thus termed “cabinet” photographs. Generally about 4 by 6 inches, they could on occasion be much larger, with various names such as Imperial cabinet. Both the carte de visite and cabinet photographs had the actual photo mounted to a heavier board, usually with the photographer’s imprint either on the bottom front or the back. The cabinet photograph remained in vogue until about the turn of the 20th century, when it was replaced by photographs with sizes pretty much as we know them, ranging from snapshots and postcard size to 8 by 10 inches. The 11 by 14 inch photograph didn’t become popular until about 1920, and was mainly used by entertainers. The earliest 8 by 10 inch photographs were often sepia in tone (brownish), but sepia started to be phased out in the 1930’s and yielded to black and white. These in turn began to be replaced by color about 1965. Beware the signed photograph that is out of this dating context. For example, you are not likely to see a genuine signed cabinet photograph of anyone who died before 1865, nor a color photograph of someone who died before 1960.

Watch out for photographs which are merely identified in writing on the front by someone else, as was commonly done with carte de visite and cabinet photographs. Fortunately, people who wrote a name on a photograph as identification made no attempt to duplicate the notable’s genuine signature. As an example of this phenomenon, someone recently wrote me saying he had a signed photograph of Stonewall Jackson, which would be quite a find if genuine. When I saw a scan of it, it turned out to be a CDV which had been labeled on the bottom front by someone at the time, “General Jackson.”

The possibility of encountering secretarial, stamped, facsimile and, most recently, forged signatures is the greatest in this segment, and this is particularly true in the entertainment field. As far as vintage (pre-1950) movie star photographs go, there is a good rule of thumb. The photographs came in 4 sizes: postcard, 5 by 7, 8 by 10 and 11 by 14. Postcard photographs generally have an obviously printed or photographic signature on the front, if any at all. Signatures on 5 by 7’s are 80% secretarial, as these were sent out by the truckload by the studios. With just a few exceptions (notably Spencer Tracy), only actors and actresses who were really minor had the time or inclination to sign them on a regular basis. Those on 8 by 10’s are 50% genuine and those on 11 by 14’s are 90% genuine. There is a reason for this. Back in the 1930’s and early 1940’s, if you wrote a movie star for a signed photo, you generally got a postcard saying that they were available for a certain payment, 10 cents for a 5 by 7, 25 cents for an 8 by 10 and a dollar for an 11 by 14. Obviously in those days, if anyone was willing to spend a dollar, they deserved the real McCoy. 11 by 14 inch photos were also the size given by stars to other stars and to close friends and family, and were virtually always inscribed. After 1950, both authentic and secretarially signed photos were almost always 8 by 10 inches, and the percentage of authentic examples dropped. Photographs after 1990 are suspect in general, due to the avalanche of forgeries and increasing unwillingness of celebrities to take the time to sign autographs.

b. Writing styles of individuals and eras. Know writing styles. You are not likely to see a letter of Lincoln’s with a closing much longer than “Truly yours,” as these were short in his time, while you may never see one of Washington’s which ends with anything much shorter than “I am very truly your most obedient servant,” as closings were long in his. A letter earlier than 1800 without a flowery closing, or after 1850 without a short closing, must be closely scrutinized. Moreover, Lincoln was very succinct in his letters, never using two words where one would do. Any letter with his name which has extra verbiage or is gossipy in tone could not have been written by him, no matter what the autograph on it looks like. It is the same with JFK.

A few years back it was discovered that a supposed cache of letters and documents to and from Marilyn Monroe and John F. Kennedy were forged. It took "experts" from the autograph field and the FBI quite a while to determine these were forgeries, though the material should have been suspect from the start. Vanity Fair published pictures of two of the items, one a letter to JFK from MM asking for a trust fund for her mother in order to buy her silence about the connection between her, JFK and mobster Sam Giancana, and another from JFK to his alleged lawyer sending him the note from MM. First of all, the writing just wasn't either Marilyn's or JFK's, no two ways about it. But this story is about what the notes said. MM's note was addressed “Dear Jack” and signed “M. Monroe,” a signature she almost surely never used, and was incredibly indiscreet. JFK’s note was a rambling one, utterly unlike the concise, even terse language he actually used in correspondence. Moreover, the savvy Kennedy would have been about the last person in the world to put anything in writing to anyone about such an explosive relationship, if indeed one existed. Knowing these simple facts would have saved a lot of people a lot of money.

c. Consider the price. Of course we are all looking for bargains, but as a collector consider a real bargain to be perhaps 50-75% of what the actual value of the autograph should be. Be extremely careful if you see an autograph going for a smaller fraction of what you know to be its value, as for a dealer to offer such a bargain, or for an auction to list such an item with that small a reserve, is more than suspicious. A client of ours recently asked us to check out an on-line auction where a supposed signature of George Washington had a current bid, nearing the end of the sale, of $1,200. A genuine signature of the first president is worth about $7,000, so $1,200 would be a more than roaring bargain. In such a circumstance, ask yourself why something like this would be going so unbelievably cheap. Note that word “unbelievably.” And don’t believe it. We looked at that signature, as I’m sure did a lot of other dealers and experienced collectors, and saw that the “signature” was an awful quality forgery. So don’t expect to get something for only a small fraction of what it is worth. Be happy with a lesser bargain, as that is really about the best you can hope for and be safe.

d. Historical anachronisms. Your signature may have changed over time, and that applies to celebrities also. Judy Garland’s signature went through 3 different, distinct phases and John Lennon’s at least 5. Recently I saw a photograph purportedly signed by the Beatles which pictured them circa 1968, yet had a form of John’s signature that he used circa 1964 and had abandoned by 1966. The picture proclaimed itself a forgery.

e. Consider the facts in the following sections: Forgeries and Particular Issues in Buying Autographs.

PART III - Forgeries

There are some very talented forgers operating right now, producing an absolutely astounding number of bad autographs, and no shortage of dealers and auctions willing to peddle their wares. Some people know who they are, but unfortunately, because of potential lawsuits, nobody is willing to name names. Thus the great forgers of today operate with impunity, while the government shows little interest and won’t intervene. The buyer must protect himself, yet can almost always avoid the snares of forgers if he follows these rules.

Our First Focus: On the Autographs Themselves

Know Where the Greatest Dangers Lie

The problem of forged signed items is worst in the fields of sports, rock music and entertainment. There is substantial public interest in these segments, and because of the internet, the scale of this problem has grown enormously. A huge percentage of autographs in these fields are phony, so the greatest possible caution must be exercised if you collect in these areas. However, other collectors must not be complaisant, as forgers are at work to some degree in all autograph fields. Bad Martin Luther King, Jr. signatures and Ronald Reagan signed quotes are everywhere, and I have seen forged Einsteins, Robert E. Lees and U. S. presidents from Washington to Bush.

Be Careful What You Buy

Some items are simply safer than others. Official signed documents, correspondence on printed letterhead and handwritten letters are hard to forge. They are much less likely to be bogus than easier to concoct things like signed photographs. “Cuts” don’t make the cut, as they are just two words on a piece of paper. Simple to forge, rare signatures on pieces of paper should be viewed skeptically. It used to be that forgers generally kept away from inscriptions, handwritten letters, forms (like contracts) and items on letterhead, nor did they lower themselves to forge autographs of minor people. In today’s brave new world, bogus contracts are typed out on plain paper and signed and inscriptions are commonly forged. Even letterhead is not completely safe: I have seen a pretty convincing Ty Cobb forgery on a reprinted copy of his real letterhead (still the newness of the paper gave it away). The crowning indignity is that many worthless signatures are now being forged and placed in books and albums in proximity to the rarer ones, to make the valuable ones appear in a natural setting. All these strategies are designed to lull the unwary into thinking that these kinds of things just aren’t forged, that they are safe. The words “in person” are magic to some people, but they make me nervous, as these examples often look nothing like the real thing. I ignore claims that autographs are in person and review them the same as if they were not, unless I am looking at a large collection and talking to the original people that obtained them.
Avoid Things That Are Too Good to Be True

Beginners in the autograph field naturally want exciting things, and may quickly gravitate toward the most spectacular looking pieces. They don’t realize that what they want either doesn’t exist in the real world or is so rare that its appearance would create quite a buzz of conversation. This spells opportunity for the crooks that pollute the waters. Some of today’s best forgers specialize in group shots, such as those featuring an entire cast of a television program or show five American presidents together. We rarely see one of these group pictures authentically signed. Forgers also love to choose “best case” photographs to sign, ones that would be extremely rare if authentic; these often show film stars in their greatest roles, as Judy Garland playing Dorothy in the classic “The Wizard of Oz.” Although Garland did sign photographs, I have never seen an authentic still of her from any of her films, no less as Dorothy. 8 by 10 inch signed photographs of Vivien Leigh from “Gone With the Wind” are another example of best case pictures impossible to find. Here’s another. We have seen numerous purported signed duet photographs of John and Jacqueline Kennedy at auction, but never one that was real. An enormous percentage of best case autographs are forgeries; if low priced avoid them altogether, as well as the auctions and dealers always having lots of them.

Know About Signatures With a Difference

Some time ago, after having seen innumerable Clark Gable signatures over my career, I first saw a suspicious example with a very uncharacteristic capital C, one which exaggerated an eccentricity in Gable’s authentic autograph to the point of burlesque. Other than for the C, this was an excellent attempt at Gable’s signature. It must have been successful both for the forger and the auction house that likes to sell his stuff, because soon after I saw a second signature, again with the same C. Then a third, then more. Now, if there is a major variation like this in even one letter of a signature with no plausible explanation, it is probably a forgery and should be left alone. What is most interesting about this forgery, however, is that it has became so common that it appears everywhere, even on the covers of catalogs. Now it is taken by the unknowing as the way Gable’s signature really looked, and ought to look, and is itself being forged on the internet!

Hastily Signed

Beware of autographs noted in descriptions as being “hastily signed.” We’ve seen untold thousands of signatures, and while on occasion one might seem to have been signed hastily, even those retain 95% of their normal look. They might be a bit elongated or the final letter might trail off more than usual, but that’s about it. If pressed for time, the signer might sometimes shorten his or her signature, as Frederic March did. Perhaps half of the autographs of this two-time Academy Award winning actor are signed in full, and the other half are signed “F. March”. Nevertheless, the “F” and the “March” look exactly the same as they do in the fully signed examples. In a recent auction quite a number of vintage signatures on old album leaves (blank ones are very simple to obtain) were described as “hastily signed.” One? Possibly. Two? Extremely unlikely. Six or seven? No way! “Hastily signed” is just a pleasant way to cover up a poor forgery.

More Handwriting Is Better

Some people erroneously think that inscriptions ruin a signed photograph, book or program. Actually, the more handwriting there is on any autographed item, the better. Remember that learning how to sign names is one thing and learning how to duplicate handwriting is quite another. Even the greatest forgers of all time did not learn more than a few different handwritings (and imperfectly at that), and usually limited themselves to such giants as Washington and Lincoln. Forgers prefer to place as little writing as possible on their wares, as the handwriting would give them away, so the vast majority of the forgeries we have seen are merely signed or have very brief inscriptions. Always be extra careful about items that are not inscribed to an individual. Do not, however, allow the existence of a short inscription to lull you into a false sense of security, as some of the best forgers now routinely include brief inscriptions like “Best regards” or “To Grace.”
Apply Your Common Sense

Did you ever write to a president about one of his policies and get a thank you letter back? Probably 50,000 Americans wrote a similar letter about the same policy and received the same response. Could the president take the time to sign all these authentically? Of course not. Could Mark Twain have written a letter from New Orleans while he was in England? Don’t laugh, I saw one; it was a decent job of forgery as far as the writing was concerned. Would Lincoln have written a letter referring to the Battle of First Bull Run as such before the second battle had been fought there? Think about the circumstances of an autograph. Forgers sometimes get the signatures and/or writing down fairly well, but lose sight of the larger picture.

Recently two forgeries further illustrating this point came to our attention. One was a Gone With the Wind program supposedly signed by Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Leslie Howard, Olivia DeHaviland, Ann Rutherford, Evelyn Keyes and George Reeves. Now individually, Reeve’s signature is the most valuable of all those of the cast, but that is because of his popularity as TV’s Superman. If you remember him at all from GWTW, it is only because he had the very minor part of one of the Tarleton twins at the very beginning. All the other signatories of the program were major stars in the film, and it was signed by no other bit players. Now ask yourself why, back in 1939, anyone would have selected Reeves to be the only signatory among the bit players. Talk about gilding the lily.

The second was an item I received for authentication. Lee Bolton played a cop on some of the Three Stooges shorts, and later in life attended Three Stooges conventions, taking with him photographs produced just for him to sign at such venues. There was a large image of Bolton, and at the bottom were small pictures of all of the Stooges he acted with, Curly, Larry, Moe, Joe Besser and Shemp. These small photos were each supposedly signed by the five above named Stooges. Curly had a severe stroke in 1947 and died in 1952. Shemp took over but died in 1955. Joe Besser was chosen to replace him, so by the time Besser became a Stooge, and qualified to appear on the picture, Curly and Shemp were dead. Impossibility never stops the forgers.

Our Second Focus: On the Dealers and Auctions Who Sell Autographs

How to Identify Reputable Dealers

You will really reduce your problems, if not eliminate them altogether, by buying only from reputable dealers. This is, of course, easy to say, but the real question is how to recognize them amidst the many bad guys claiming to be good guys. The rise of the internet has greatly aggravated this problem, as there are more sellers, all touting their credentials for integrity, and the seller is increasingly a person the buyer doesn’t know personally, and whose trustworthiness, veracity, and knowledge he is unsure about (or even doubts). Hopefully this section will, if not give you full armor plating against the slings and arrows of the unscrupulous, and the blunders of those who lack sufficient knowledge and expertise, at least give you a bit of radar.

Fortunately, you don’t have to just guess about finding the right dealers. Most good dealers issue regular catalogs - get samples from a variety of them and review them critically and with care. You’ll soon be able to tell the reputable ones from the rest. Reputable dealers’ catalogs are clearly well researched, thorough, and the people sound like they know what they are talking about and care about the material. They stand behind their autographs with no questions asked, have a reasonable return policy, guarantee authenticity without time limit, and will do everything reasonable to satisfy a customer. There is no hard sell, no unsubstantiated or bogus claims, no bombast or bragging, no inflated descriptions or mischaracterizations, no spurious association of an item with the name of someone important, and no complexity, aggressiveness or defensiveness about their guarantee or return policy.

Avoid dealers who: a) are selling claims and not facts; b) try to convince you to buy something you aren’t sure you want or can’t afford, or attempt to push or sweet-talk you into something; c) make it complex or impossible for you to return something, usually by requiring you, the customer, to prove the autograph is a forgery; d) make claims for the autographs that aren’t verifiable from the obvious facts of the situation, or mischaracterize them by calling almost everything rare and important; e) are not helpful or do not manifest high standards and integrity in every way.

Speaking of representations, on a recent vacation I saw a shop in a strip mall with a big banner above it touting

"Authentic Autographs," and similar characterizations are routinely found on the internet. For any seller to advertise that the autographs he carries are “authentic” or “genuine” is the worst possible sign, and when we see such a statement in a title or description, we avert our attention immediately. Trumpeting that an autograph is hand-signed (thank goodness the feet were not involved) or headlines directing you to “look” are other negative indicators.

Also be wary of dealers who tend to overstate the obvious (at length) in their descriptions. By this I mean dealers who write a full page biography of Lincoln to introduce some minor item they are selling. Generally, the more irrelevant the content in the description, the more routine the item, and the more trouble you are probably in if you buy it. I saw one dealer who billed a minor deed from Kentucky circa 1810, signed by no one anybody’s heard of, as an association piece with Abraham Lincoln, because Lincoln lived there at the same time. And another thought - we like to make sure we know the dealer’s real name - the man behind the name - when buying from a generic name business like Ye Olde Autographe Shoppe.

As for organizations, many dealers advertise that they are members of The Manuscript Society, the Universal Autograph Collector’s Club (UACC) and the International Autograph Dealers Alliance (IADA). This means little to us, although we belong to the first two and they are very nice. However, joining has nothing to do with a dealer’s knowledge or honesty; all he needs to do is pay a small annual fee. Although bad apples can theoretically be ejected, very few have been. We are also members of the Professional Autograph Dealer’s Association (PADA), an organization which actually screens applicants with care and has a strong code of ethics. It does a good job all in all, so dealers who are PADA members will generally be more reliable than most of those who are not.

Analyzing Auctions

Auctions have really proliferated over the past decade. Of those issuing print catalogs, some are famous international houses, some autograph specialists and some general houses which come across autographs from time to time. And then there are all the on-line versions. Auctions differ very substantially in quality, reliability and reputability. We have stopped dealing with quite a number of them, breaking off when: a) the volume of forgeries or questionable pieces got just too big to stomach any longer; b) it became apparent that there were phony reserves to suck bidders in; c) improper insider bids jacking up prices were suspected; or d) the results of sale showed an unbelieveable percentage of items sold, underestimating the number which had actually passed. We do bid with others, but exercise extreme caution in doing so, even if it means letting interesting looking things pass by. Why have we taken this stance? Caution born from experience. Few auctions will disclose the identity of their consignors, and without that knowledge it is difficult to reach a satisfactory conclusion about the origin of the autograph (and as you undoubtedly recall, the autograph has the burden of proof to establish that it is real and origin is a key factor).

The on-line auctions are fraught with peril and we only bid on autographs that just could not have been forged or altered. With the in-print houses, caution is also the unfortunate by-word. We have come to the conclusion that too many will offer whatever they think will sell, and despite vociferous claims to the contrary, authenticity is not something of true concern to them. Moreover, in many cases nowadays, auctions are selling their own material - the auctioneer is the undisclosed consignor - and actually double-dips, making an additional commission over the sales price as if the items were the property of third parties. And where there are in truth third party consignors, are their items well scrutinized?Some auctions will candidly admit (without a hint of embarrassment) that they rely on consignors to authenticate the material they are consigning (the auctioneers apparently not being willing or perhaps able to authenticate the material that comes in for themselves). Recently, some auction houses have started overtly claiming that “qualified”, supposedly unaffiliated dealers, do their authentications. Even if these contractors are honest outsiders, it is a sad admission of in-house ignorance and downloading of responsibility by the auction; however, the independence of these third parties cannot be assumed, as they may be undisclosed consignors or have some other financial stake in the auction. If these are not all conflicts of interest, some quite open, I don’t know what are.

With a few of the better auctions, when it comes to historical, scientific or literary material, we have a somewhat higher level of confidence as to authenticity, but still exercise a high degree of caution with their offerings in other fields of interest. We will use the Beatles to illustrate why you should read the descriptions of all auctions critically and be vigilant. A major, well-known auction sold me a Beatles secretarially signed program and forged signed book some years ago for about $2,000. When a number of dealers told me the sad truth, I asked for my money back. The auction finally half-acknowledged that it had sold me bad material. Then just this year I asked another top auction house’s London office about a book signed by John Lennon (the signature was authentic), which was inscribed “To Peter” and described as having been signed to Peter Martin, a crucial figure in Beatles history. Upon inquiry, the auction had no proof whatever that their “Peter” was Peter Martin, and no grounds to justify their claim. And these people are supposed to be the best!

One flashy auction I know of has a really novel twist: the conditions of sale state that they are such experts, and their experts are such experts, that they know more than anyone and everyone else about autographs. Therefore, everything they sell is authentic by the fact that they are selling it, and they will not consider taking back any autographs, regardless of what other authorities may say. This is truly an extraordinary if not unique combination of arrogance, misrepresentation, chutzpah, short-sightedness and stupidity. Needless to say, we do not bid with them.

Understand the Nature of a Guarantee

A guarantee of authenticity is no panacea; it is only as good as the dealer or auction who stands behind it. First of all, with too many dealers and auction houses, caveat emptor is the byword in reality, regardless of the promises. They often could care less if their autographs are genuine, and if the poor collector ever does find out the autograph is not authentic, he may or may not have anyone to go back to, and if he does he may or may not get his money back. In my Beatles example, the auction’s guarantee of authenticity was, apparently, mainly a marketing ploy; they didn’t actually expect to be called upon to honor it. It took many months and very high pressure to get my $2,000 refund.

Feel free to question a dealer about anything you are thinking of buying or have bought from him. He should be able to tell you exactly why he believes the autograph to be genuine. If you have any doubts about the authenticity of something you have just received from a reputable dealer, whether you’re right or wrong, he or she will immediately refund your money with no questions asked.

Know the Real Value of a Certificate of Authenticity

Many people think that there is some agency regulating such certificates and that they are as reliable as a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. This impression is fostered by the worst crooks in the field, who use them as a marketing tool. It is false; issuance of certificates is not regulated in any way. Anyone can make up certificates, with fancy engraved lettering and bright gold seals, and they can swear every which way that the items are real, but that leaves you nowhere if the person doesn’t have expertise and integrity. Certificates, like guarantees, are worth no more than the dealer who issues them. Be suspicious if an autograph is sold by pumping its certificate of authenticity as much if not more than the autograph, as that is a sure sign of trouble. In addition, a number of forgers work hand in glove with persons calling themselves forensic experts who provide valueless certificates of authenticity for the items they peddle. Also, read the language of certificates carefully, and avoid those that are evasive, or shift responsibility to other certificates or the buyer.

The more people tell you about how much trouble they went to having an autograph authenticated, the less you can believe it. One person claimed to have “spared no expense” to authenticate a signature of Grover Cleveland, worth maybe $150 at best, which was as phony as a three dollar bill. And the more apologies a person makes about his or her autograph (I think it is good but can’t be positive; my grandmother told me she thinks my grandfather got it in person; this was in my aunt’s husband’s sister’s family for 100 years), the more the chances are they know it’s no good.

We once had occasion to go into an “autograph boutique” shop. Virtually all their entertainment signed photographs were forgeries, and some came with certificates of authenticity not from the shop itself, but from the dealer from whom they were purchased. This is similar to the auction practice of having third parties expertise their offerings and provide certificates. We avoid dealers and auctioneers who are so unqualified to authenticate the autographs they sell that they openly rely on the expertise of others (who may in fact be undisclosed, interested parties) to satisfy their own deficiencies. A good rule of thumb might be that the more certificates an item comes with, and the more the sales presentation relies on certificates, the less chance it is authentic.

Dealers Who Protest Too Much or Know Too Much

Recently a customer asked us to review a Beatles signed photograph that he’d bought from a gallery. It was bad, and we wrote a letter for him giving our opinion so he could get a refund. The gallery owner responded with a very long, threatening and hysterical letter attacking us every which way, justifying himself as one of the best in the business, and refusing the refund. Another time when I first started as a collector, I questioned the authenticity of some things I had bought from a dealer. He became livid with rage and intensely defensive. Later I caught him red-handed forging material. I have found over the years that only dealers with a lot to cover up respond with anger when asked to give a refund or are questioned about authenticity, and the more defensive they are, the more trouble their customers are in. Avoid those who protest their innocence too much.

There was once a dealer who claimed to anyone who would listen that he was the world’s greatest authority on John F. Kennedy. He even went so far as to say, according to someone who was there, that he could tell you what JFK was doing and where he was within any given 15 minutes in Kennedy’s lifetime. This got him a great deal of attention and multitudes flocked to acclaim him, but I never understood why. To me, people who claim to know everything there is to know about anything or anybody inspire nervousness, not confidence. Nobody has that level of knowledge. Moreover, boastfulness and bombast are always, in my experience, a very negative sign. And so it was here, as I never cared for the look of many of the autographs he carried. So it you meet someone who claims to know more about Catholicism than the Pope, run.

Know the Identified Forgers

Pre-eminent among the known forgers were Robert Spring and Joseph Cosey. Spring lived in the mid-19th century and specialized in Washington autographs. They are decently done, but the major problem is that after this length of time they have taken on the look that comes with age, so the unwary can still be fooled. But even a superficial comparison with a genuine example of Washington’s handwriting and signature should be enough to spot a Spring forgery. Spring’s writing is smaller than Washington’s (always be wary of uncharacteristically small handwriting) and a little less rounded. Joseph Cosey lived and worked around the 1930’s and specialized more in Lincoln and Franklin. I could never figure out why people were fooled by Cosey’s Benjamin Franklin forgeries. Almost invariably, he would forge pay orders supposedly signed by Franklin as president of Pennsylvania late in his life. Cosey’s forged Franklin signatures were superb, but they were representative of Franklin’s signature of 10 or more years earlier, rather than the slightly tremulous signature of his advanced age, when he would have signed these pay orders. Nevertheless, the key to these forgeries was not Franklin’s signature but the countersignature of John Nicholson vertically at the left. Nicholson’s autograph is quite distinctive, and Cosey never bothered to make his forgery look remotely like Nicholson’s real signature. The same holds true for one of his forgeries of Washington - the signature was done well, but a countersignature of his secretary, Tobias Lear, looked nothing at all like Lear’s real and very distinctive signature.

The “R” Word

What is so rare as the proper use of the word rare? In autograph terms, the situation is pathetic more than poetic. You can scarcely find an autograph on-line and in some catalogs that is not “extremely rare”, quite a feat if these characterizations were just 10% true. Here are some definitions to help you slog through these claims and get you to a place where the air is, shall we say, rare. An autograph is uncommon if you do not see it frequently, but if you wait a while, it will come by. An example would be a Franklin Roosevelt signed White House card. A scarce autograph is a shade more difficult to find, and the wait to come up with one is likely to be longer. A item signed by all of the Beatles would qualify here. A Stonewall Jackson ALS would be considered very scarce. An autograph can only be considered rare if you just don’t see examples around at all, like an ALS of Herbert Hoover as president. For an autograph to be extremely rare, it has to be virtually impossible to find, like a letter of John Hancock from July 1776 about the Declaration of Independence. The latter is, of course, an illustration of how great content can legitimately create rarity, as Hancock’s autograph is common, but where would you go to buy a letter of his from that date and on that subject?

On-Line Issues

A few years ago while surfing I went to the website of a “dealer” whose site made me think of several more rules for avoiding forgeries on the internet. First, beware of web sites where the autographs aren’t clearly discernable. This person had many scans, but most were so small or fuzzy that the autographs couldn’t be made out, an easy way to disguise problems. Second, although in 2000 the FBI closed down some of the on-line forensic “experts,” some bad guys have started to use “3rd party Certificates of Authenticity,” thereby disclaiming any responsibility themselves. Third, I saw a forged Martin Luther King signature on a dollar bill being offered the other day, and when I went to the seller’s other auctions, saw that he was offering very poor forgeries of others on dollar bills. All his auctions were “private,” meaning that the bidders’ screen names were not revealed. This eliminated the possibility that someone could write the high bidder and suggest that he or she not pay for the item as it is a forgery. We do not bid on any item in a “private” auction.

PART IV - Particular Issues in Buying Autographs

That Was Once a Scarce Autograph

Sometimes a cache of items of an individual will turn up and come on the market. Examples of this in past years are bank checks of Thomas Edison and James Fenimore Cooper. Such finds help collectors get less expensive examples of what were otherwise expensive and/or uncommon autographs, so this is nice when it happens. When it doesn’t, sometimes folks who aren’t so nice try to relieve the scarcity of an autograph by forging a few of them. Consequently, when you suddenly see several autographs turn up of the same person who was once considered scarce, or scarce in a certain form (such as best case signed photographs), all appearing in a short space of time, there is reason to be suspicious. I used the example of bank checks because there is no reason why they might not have been saved at the time as records of transactions and might not be found and put on the market. But plain signatures? A slew of best case “signed” photographs? It’s very unlikely that a cache of plain signatures of anyone would ever turn up, and almost as unlikely to find a stash of a large number of signed photographs or quotes of a person. This is especially true of someone whose autograph is scarce, because there was a good reason why the autograph was scarce to begin with.

Here are some actual examples: first signed photographs of Grace Kelly from her Hollywood years are extremely scarce, then beautiful ones are everywhere in uninscribed examples; first Martin Luther King signatures are uncommon, then they are everywhere, all adding “Best Wishes”; first four and five presidents signed photographs are scarce, then there is a positive glut, though some of the signers are dead or too ill to sign; first signatures of Woody Guthrie are outright rare, then they are at auctions and dealers galore. Some auctions and dealers seem to be always turning up this type of rare material, and we avoid them like the plague.

Here’s how legitimate finds turn up. Some years ago, we happened on a group of very scarce signed photographs of Amelia Earhart, which until his recent death had lain in the scrapbook of the Lockheed photographer who took them 65 years ago. Each photo was glued to a scrapbook page back at the time, each was different, some had other people in the photos (such as Lockheed executives), some were signed only by Earhart while others were signed by an assortment of the people pictured, a few were inscribed and most were not. Coming right from the photographer’s estate, the provenance on this group was unimpeachable and an aviation museum purchased them.

Presidential Documents

Documents signed by presidents are pretty safe bets, as no forger yet has been able to reproduce everything that goes into even the most routine land grant and military commission: the vellum, the engraving, the paper and wax seal, and the aging of the vellum (or paper) and ink. The only problems that might arise would be retracing of light ink, and, more than anything, secretarial signatures. About 1834 Andrew Jackson finally got tired of signing thousands and thousands of land grants and delegated the task to secretaries, and secretaries signed them for every president thereafter. There are a few very large ones that for some reason John Tyler chose to sign, but except for those we assume land grants signed from 1834 on are secretarial. Military commissions were signed by every president except Andrew Johnson from Washington’s time through Wilson’s, perhaps even later for top ranking general officers. Andrew Johnson supposedly hurt his hand a month or so into office, and Johnson military commissions dated more than a month after Lincoln’s death usually (but not always) bear stamped signatures. I think that Johnson was merely being lazy. He signed all other documents and wrote little notes and signed autographs and letters with seemingly no trouble, so he apparently just didn’t want to be bothered signing the commissions. They continued for a while to be genuinely countersigned by Secretary of War Stanton, but after a while even he had a stamp made. Hey, it was good enough for the boss, it was good enough for him.

Other presidential appointments, from postmasters of little towns through ambassadors and cabinet members, continued to be signed by the presidents into the 20th century, and some still are. Generally, however, Coolidge was the last to sign the minor appointments, such as postmasters. From Hoover on, these almost always bore facsimile signatures. From FDR on, documents of all degrees of importance sometimes were and sometimes weren’t genuinely signed. With these it becomes a matter of checking the signatures for signs of ink flow and crossover strokes in genuine ones, or the telltale signs of imprints, stamps and facsimiles.

Let’s consider timing anomolies. Someone once wrote an article stating that George Washington could not have signed all of the Society of the Cincinnati documents he is supposed to have signed because they were datelined from Mount Vernon, and this person proved that Washington was not at Mount Vernon on the dates some of the documents were signed. Similarly, I have seen four language ship’s passports signed by John Tyler after he left office, and by A.P. Upshur as his secretary of state long after Upshur was dead. How can you explain such situations? These documents were all signed in advance in blank, to be filled in as needed. In the case of the ship’s passports, they were distributed to various ports and continued to be used after the president left office until a new supply was received, signed by his successor. Sometimes you will encounter one of the totally blank ones, save for the signatures. I feel that they aren’t as valuable or interesting as those that were filled in and used.

Confusions in Identities

How many John Adamses were there in America in 1790? Too many to count. Adams was an extremely common family name in 18th century America, and John was the most common first name. In the early 20th century, there were two Winston ChurchilIs, a very well known (and now obscure) American writer and a minor (and now considered great) British politician and future prime minister. Sometimes letters of the minor ChurchilI surface as those of the prime minister through mistake. However, unscrupulous dealers on-line seem to be knowingly listing some letters of the "wrong" ChurchilI as merely letters of "Winston Churchill," without saying anything about the man, and people merely taking the name at face value are bidding on the near worthless items as if they were by the prime minister. They are stuck, because the letters were never described as being anything but what they are.

Also watch out for father/son pairs. Illustrated are examples of the signatures of George Ross, Senior, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and of his son, George, Junior, an autographic nobody but a minor Pennsylvania official who signed many documents. Whether there’s something in the genes or not, many sons and grandsons have signed their names very much like their fathers or grandfathers did. In the Ross example, there is one saving grace. The father died in 1779 and the son didn’t sign much until 1780 and after. The son of Charles Dickens, also named Charles, had a signature that bore an uncanny resemblance to his father’s. President U.S. Grant and his grandson, U.S. Grant 3rd, are another striking example of similar signatures. The President died before the grandson was even born, so there is not likely to be confusion, but the resemblance is remarkable and illustrates the problems in this area.

So pay attention to place and date. Obviously a letter signed by Charles Dickens after 1870 is not written by the author (who died in 1869) and a letter signed by John Adams from Albany at a time THE John Adams was in Philadelphia also provides a clear answer.

Fads and Those Who Died Young

A note here about fads, the practice of getting caught up in the mood of the moment. Pause before you buy the autograph of someone because he or she is “hot” and their name is in the headlines (like O.J. Simpson and Monica Lewinsky were), and think whether that person’s fame might not be fleeting and the autograph a fad-influenced purchase. Be similarly thoughtful about buying autographs of those who died young, thinking that their autographs are likely to be valuable since they didn’t have time to sign many. It is certainly true that James Dean and Marilyn Monroe died young and became cult figures, and yes, their autographs are very expensive because they are scarce, extremely so in Dean’s case. Moreover, the demand remains high. Why? Their movies are classics and are still popular today. Remember supply and demand, and ask yourself, in ten or even five years, will anyone really remember the person or care about his work? If the answer is no or even maybe, pause before buying the autograph. Chances are in a few years it will be still be scarce but cold as ice, and you’ll be stuck. If the answer is yes, that’s another story.

An interesting case in point is Princess Diana. When she died in 1997, though her autographs (mainly Christmas cards and signed photographs) were common, they increased quickly in value from about $800 to as much as $10,000. Interest in her was no fad, yet the price was clearly being influenced by the tragedy and intense emotion that followed it. Her long term legacy was unclear. The market ultimately stabilized the values at about $2,000.

One in a Million Isn’t Worth It

There are five known copies of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln’s hand and all are accounted for. Is there possibly a sixth? It is so doubtful that whenever someone calls and offers us a copy of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln’s hand, I don’t even ask them to send me a copy. The explanation behind their finds is pretty obvious: one or more of the handwritten copies has been reproduced in facsimile. Is it possible that there is a letter signed by Lincoln with his full signature, Abraham Lincoln? He never signed letters anything but A. Lincoln, though he signed legal and presidential documents in full. Could he have slipped up once and signed his full name to a letter? Maybe, but is it worth taking the chance? The same is true for Patrick Henry and George Washington. Never will you see their names signed in full except in the text of a legal document or receipt in their hand, and very rarely then. Know how some people signed their names, and you are less likely to be stuck.

Remember Elizabeth Claypoole

Famous people are not always known under the names they would most commonly use to sign. This is most obvious in the case of married women who are best known under either their maiden or previous marital names. Here are some examples: Beatrix Heelis = Beatrix Potter; Agatha Mallowan = Agatha Christie; Alice Hargreaves = Alice Liddell (Alice in Wonderland). If you are in Philadelphia and see some 18th century deeds, check to see if one was signed by Elizabeth Claypoole, better known by her nickname and her first husband’s surname = Betsy Ross. Her autograph is a great rarity and you would be handsomely rewarded for a little bit of time taken. Some famous men also signed in unexpected ways. Horation Nelson often signed as Nelson & Bronte, Lawrence of Arabia preferred T.E. Shaw, Mark Twain frequently signed as S.L. Clemens, and Buffalo Bill as W.F. Cody.
Don’t Dismiss Anything Out of Hand; Be Inquisitive

Some years ago, there was an auction in Philadelphia where their few autographs were on display. Sitting right out there was a document signed by President Grover Cleveland, not in mint condition as there was some foxing and crinkling of the paper. Now in general a Cleveland document in mint condition is nothing to get excited about, so one in only good condition would seem not to merit a second glance. This was true of this document, apparently, by everyone except me. There were at least two prominent, very knowledgeable dealers who attended the exhibition, perhaps more. I try not to let any autographs go unstudied. I actually took the time to read the Cleveland document, and discovered to my astonishment that it was the appointment of Rufus Peckham to the United States Supreme Court. We bought it for $750! After research established that it was the only Supreme Court appointment, by any president, to come on the market in many decades, it sold for $10,000. An incredible find, found only because I took the moment, no more, to look a bit closer.

Do Some Treasure Hunting

You may very well know that the autograph of Bat Masterson, the famous western marshal, is rare. After all, aren’t the autographs of most great figures of the American West rare? Wild Bill Hickock, for another. Or Jesse James, or Billy the Kid. Why should Bat Masterson be any less rare, all things considered? Wild Bill, Jesse and Billy all died young. Billy and Jesse were almost illiterate. But Masterson lived until 1921 and spent the last 19 years of his life as a sportswriter for the New York Morning Telegraph newspaper. His name was actually William Barclay Masterson, and he always signed as “W.B. Masterson.” How many of his letters go undetected because they are signed that way instead of Bat, and are dated from New York instead of Dodge City? Think about it and now try to find some. They’ve almost got to be out there somewhere. The same with Wyatt Earp. Masterson died at the tender age of 68. Earp lived to be 81, dying, finally, in 1929 in California. Where in heaven’s name are all his autographs? Figure that one out, then head them off at the pass.

Who was Horace Lurton? Some people can tell you that he served as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1910 until his death at the age of 70 in 1914, after having spent many years on the bench in lesser courts and as an attorney around Nashville, Tennessee. It was not until 1995 that I saw my first example of Lurton’s autograph. Why? Probably because even though I was looking at it, I could not tell what it actually said. Here is an example of Lurton’s signature. Now it’s up to you to find some more. Another illegible signature is that of General Hiram Berdan, head of the famed Civil War sharpshooters.

Did anyone famous live in your own home town or nearby? Learn who did, then be on the lookout for their autographs, even on such routine old papers as tradesman’s receipts that turn up in local flea markets and antique shops. Then check with an autograph dealer to see what the value, if any, of your hometown hero may be. Especially if you live in or near the town of Sunbury, Pa. on the Susquehanna River, about 50 miles north of Harrisburg. Why do I use this example? Well, one of the town’s tradesmen for a few years around the turn of the 19th century was Italian writer Lorenzo DaPonte. Now even people around Sunbury may not know his name, or if they do would not necessarily recognize it as one worth anything, but DaPonte wrote the librettos for three of Mozart’s greatest operas, Don Giovanni, Cosi Fan Tutti and Le Nozze di Figaro. A document of his has real value, and there must be some around there.

The same holds true almost anywhere. Are you from Connecticut? Your governor from 1889-1893 and U.S. senator from 1905-1911 was Morgan G. Bulkeley. Usually senators and governors are pretty ho hum, but Bulkeley was the first President of the National League and is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Find one of his autographs (there must be a ton of them somewhere) and it’ll be worth your while. Are you from Maine? Your governor from 1866-1870 was Joshua L. Chamberlain, the hero of Gettysburg. Look for his autographs in your state.

PART V

What to Collect; Focusing on Collections

Many people start out by collecting sort of higgledy piggledy, but eventually discover one or two fields in which they want to concentrate, so if you are a beginner, don’t be afraid to spread yourself out a bit. You may eventually find a favorite field, but even if you don’t there’s nothing to worry about. Collect whatever interests you, no matter how many worlds apart the individuals whose autographs you buy may be. We can’t stress too often that your collection should be important and satisfying to you and only you, regardless of conventional wisdom.

One popular method is collecting “sets,” and the most popular field is American presidents. Here a set is eminently possible to form, as there is no lack of autographs of any president. A set of vice presidents would be interesting, and quite possible. Another set might be Supreme Court justices. A few are very scarce but all are obtainable over time. If you like Civil War, you could put together sets of generals; though because of the scarcity of a few, a complete set of Union generals would be pretty difficult and one of Confederate generals extremely so. If you have the funds, by all means go for a set of signers of the Declaration of Independence while it is still possible. A set of signers of the Constitution is easier and less expensive. There are many possibilities.

Prices Guides: Not the Gospel

Price guides have been well known in the field for years. We occasionally refer to them, though we find the values given are often not reliable reflections of prices for many items. This is particularly true for anything other than signatures. Here’s an example. I just glanced at the name Adams in a price guide and noticed the listing for signer and president John Adams. The guide gives the price of a signature at $1,500; this is close, though we think $1,300 would be more realistic. The listing for an ALS is $20,000. Let’s look at how meaningful that figure is. Just a year ago, I sold a very nice ALS for $10,000, and made a profit over the price I paid at auction. A routine content Adams ALS sold for only $4,500 recently at auction, though it had some condition problems which contributed to that result. I have an Adams ALS of historical significance which may be worth as much as $100,000, and another great one sold last year for over $200,000. So the $20,000 figure is essentially meaningless and is not really useful even as a kind of average. So be very cautious when using price guides.

Research

Proper research can add hundreds, even thousands of dollars to an autograph's value, and any amount of time spent on determining an autograph’s meaning and importance is well spent. In doing research, we suggest liberally using libraries, historical societies and similar institutions. We often have occasion to call on them and have received assistance over and above the call of duty. The archivists and reference librarians in the smaller institutions seem to be particularly fascinated by autographs and our questions, and go out of their way to help. As for presidential libraries, I have recently had cause to call on the Hayes, Hoover, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan Libraries for assistance, and the people there have been extremely helpful, coming up with the most minute and amazing information. I should also add the archives and special collections at West Point to my list of good guys. And a special thanks to a man at the Fredericksburg Battlefield Association. We asked him if CSA General Daniel Ruggles had a son named Edward. Not being able to determine this from his reference books, this gentleman actually went out to Ruggles' grave in Fredericksburg and determined that a son named Edward was buried beside him, thus answering our question.

We recently bought a receipt signed by Meriwether Lewis and dated February 1807, acknowledging that he had received funds from the army for his pay and subsistence. What could these monies be for? The Lewis and Clark Expedition ended in late 1806, but the auction house that sold the receipt had failed to make any connection, possibly for lack of information. We set about digging into records and reference materials, and after a lot of work were able to establish that this was indeed what we had suspected: Lewis’s pay receipt for the great Expedition. With the research, we saw the piece in a whole new light, and were able to determine that this was a find of great historical importance. Another time we had a signed photograph of Eva Peron which had a slight discrepancy in the letter "r" from the few authentic examples we were using to authenticate it. We called all over the country trying to get copies of her handwriting, because it appeared clear that whoever signed the signature also wrote the inscription on the photograph. Finally, after many days and many calls, we succeeded in finding in a book at a store a handwritten postscript to a letter that proved that the inscription on our photograph was done by Eva, as in the postscript she made her small "r"s the same way. This required hours of tedious work, but it is representative of the work that needs to be done in authenticating autographs.

Is An Autograph An Investment?

Over the past few years we have received an increasing number of queries about how autographs fare as investments. There have always been plenty of bogus claims from the bad guys touting their junky, overpriced autographs as investments, with the greatest claims made for the poorest investments. However, there is an almost total lack of actual, reliable information. Traditionally, legitimate autograph dealers are history buffs who dislike thinking of their “treasures” as investments; perhaps this explains why nobody had taken the time and effort. Today, however, with the stock market an increasingly problematical investment vehicle of choice, the question is more relevant than ever.

We are in the process of making a serious, data-driven study of this issue, and final results are not yet in. However, I can say that the data will establish that quality historical autographs did quite well as compared with other investments over the past century. The most recent data (for 2002) reveals that the best historical autographs experienced extraordinary increases in value as compared to other investments, and great scientific and literary autographs also had a fine track record. This rosy picture will not prove, however, to be universal. More routine letters and documents in even these fine categories did increase significantly in value, but could not be said to outpace other valid investments (though in many cases certainly equaling them). As for the lesser categories of autographs (like entertainment and sports), they lack enough of a track record to make the data truly meaningful, but we found no evidence that would support a claim that they are provably valid investment vehicles.

This does not mean that autographs do not have their fluctuations, as do other investments. Take, for instance, Revolutionary War autographs. They shot up in value in the years immediately preceding the Bicentennial, then leveled off for about the next decade until a number of wealthy collectors entered the field and caused values to double, triple or more in many cases. They then leveled off again. Now the best ones are bringing higher prices than ever while the more routine ones are not. Civil War autographs absolutely exploded after the Ken Burns series on PBS in 1990 and it took almost a decade for prices to stabilize. The market finally became exhausted and now this segment is slow. It will, inevitably, revitalize at some point in the future. When? Well, if I knew for sure what the future held, investing would be simple.

What about the dark side, of autographs mass marketed as investments? You see these either on cable television on shop-at-home stations or in print ads. Often these are signed baseballs or signed photographs. Let’s say a station sells 4,000 baseballs signed by someone it is touting, often claiming that the balls are good investments. Of those 4,000 people, a portion are buying the signed baseball because they genuinely admire the player and simply want the memento. The other people are hoping to sell their ball at a profit some day. Yet this same player has signed for a fee tens of thousands of other baseballs, bats, photos and other memorabilia at the myriad baseball card shows around the country. Take a great player, Joe DiMaggio, as an example. He signed and signed and signed for at least 60 years, certainly autographing over 100,000 items (maybe the true figure would be closer to 300,000), so virtually everyone who wants a signed DiMaggio item has had plenty of opportunity to get one. With a huge supply and uncertain demand, how good of an investment could his autograph be? And that’s Joe DiMaggio. Who are they selling on TV now? Well known players, perhaps, but none of them likely to be the second coming of the Yankee Clipper. And this problem applies to anyone whose autograph is being mass marketed.

Thoughts on the Autograph Marketplace Today

The last dozen years have seen substantial growth in interest in the autograph field, and at the same time more and more good content and important autographs have disappeared from the private marketplace into institutions or major collections. These factors alone cause scarcity and affect price. And unlike in years past, when letters and manuscripts of recent notables provided a constant source of new material, there is no longer a reliable, corresponding replenishment of supply. This is because, as I told The Wall Street Journal for an article it published in February 2003, emails, faxes, cell phones and the like have reduced the volume of postally-mailed letters to a trickle, and of this pittance, a growing number are signed mechanically by autopen or printer. When to this dismal picture is added the fact that manuscripts are usually created today in computers, and more and more forms have preprinted signatures, it seems clear that there will be precious few authentic personally-signed autographs to collect that were created from the year 2000 forward. This will put (already is putting) pressure on the supply of remaining autographs of the past, and finding quality autographs has become more difficult. In fact, the difference between the substantial number of important items readily available when I started as a dealer in 1989, and the reduced number on the market now, is striking. Yet I do not want to leave the impression that it is impractical if not impossible for collectors today to build superb collections. If quality is what motivates you, fine things are still out there waiting to be found. You will simply need to hunt to ferret them out, and be willing to be patient, careful and persistent.

So, educated reader, go forth and enjoy this magnificent field of ours - autographs!