Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobu
Kids are not a good example to compare to adults on this one - the bones in their hands/wrists and their brains are not fully formed.
Jackson wrote numbers and kept notebooks:
https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/l...ok-page/?cat=0
https://www.gottahaverockandroll.com...-LOT38717.aspx
So he clearly had the ability to hold a pen. I also imagine he drew pictures or made doodles at some point in his life, even if only as a kid.
This is all getting away from the point of this thread. And I still say that this makes a lot more sense as a legit signature than it does as a fake given the provenance, the other photos, and the period published newspaper piece that has hand-signed photos in it, not facsimile signatures. |
Notice that the bottom one had no bids and didn't sell, and that was less than two months before the photo sold for $1.4 million. The top one sold for $763 in August of last year. I'm guessing that despite the Beckett COA, there was serious doubt about the authenticity. If he could actually write all those things, that would change the entire discussion about his ability to sign his name.
But the one thing I'd like to know is, if the new owner of the photo decides to do an analysis that shows the ink has been on the photo since 1911, if Joe didn't sign it, who did? It looks nothing like the way his wife signed his name, and if the photographer or someone else signed it what exemplar did they use?