Signed Joe Dimaggio snapshot

[Chris Counts]

I'm posting this here because I didn't get any feedback on the main memorabilia forum ...

I'm seeking opinions on a signed wartime snapshot of Joe Dimaggio I just picked up off eBay. First, how does the signature look? The seller, who has great feedback, guaranteed its authenticity. My biggest concern, though, is that it's a print of a smaller signed snapshot. It measures a perfect 5x7, which seems unusually large for a snapshot. The signature measures 4.5 inches at its widest point. Did Joe write this big? Also, there's no indentation on the surface of the photo from the signature, although I guess it's possible it was signed in later years with a fine point Sharpie. But looking at it at an angle reveals no distinction between the photo and the signature. The paper also isn't quite as glossy as my other wartime snapshots. What do you think? Any feedback is appreciated ...

[ATP]

You are in the best position to judge as you can look at the signature through a loupe and see if it is actually written, with overlaps, pressure, etc. it's super hard to tell from a scan, but I would say from what I can see it definitely has that look and color on the signature of when a photo is reproduced from one that has a real autograph. I get scans like this emailed to me a few times a year with sometimes fairly rare autos, usually of actors, that are reproduced images from a signed original. I only bought one once, and it was years ago. As soon as it showed up, it had this same feel to it. I think I paid $25 at the time so I chalked it up to a good learning experience.

[RichardSimon]

Your doubts are all over your post.
I think you already know the answer.

[thecatspajamas]

Just look at it under magnification. If the signature is on the surface of the photo, then it makes sense to ask the rest of the questions. If it is "in" the photo, it's a moot point as it is definitely a facsimile. If you're still not sure at what "level" the writing appears when looking at it under magnification, look at the edges of the supposed signature. An original signature will have crisp edges, an immediate change as you move from the ink of the sigature to the photographed image beneath. A signature "in" the photo typically won't have such a defined "edge" to the signature lines and the edges will appear slightly fuzzy.

If pressed, from looking at the scan, I would guess that the signed original 3.5"x5" or so snapshot photo was re-shot and blown up to the 5"x7" size you have, with the now-facsimile signature embedded in the image. Neither the signature nor the photograph look to be 1st Generation Original based on your scan. Since you have the piece in hand, though, you are in a much better position to make this determination than we are.

[Chris Counts]

Thanks for the feedback. Lance, I think you nailed it. As soon as I saw it in person, I had my doubts. Now I'm waiting to see how the seller responds ...

[drc]

Hold the photo surface at a sharp angle to a light. If the signature was written on top of the photo, as opposed to the sig being part of the photo, it should be obvious by the difference in gloss.