Please grade this FF2 with Kirby sig
0

31 posts in this topic

10,221 posts
takeit.gif Oh, we're supposed to grade it? crazy.gifforeheadslap.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,805 posts

Now that I look at it a second time I'd say 4.0-4.5. That spine is pretty dinged up, both corners are extremely rounded. Still, a very nice book. Nice colors.

Edited by KingOfRulers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,631 posts

4.5 hail.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,730 posts

4.5 sounds about right . . . but, are you sure that's Jack's sig? Looks a little too neat to me -- can anyone chime in here? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
912 posts
4.5 sounds about right . . . but, are you sure that's Jack's sig? Looks a little too neat to me -- can anyone chime in here? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

I think I've got a book he signed somewhere. I'll take a look and see if I can dig it up. That does look sweet, tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,730 posts
4.5 sounds about right . . . but, are you sure that's Jack's sig? Looks a little too neat to me -- can anyone chime in here? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

I think I've got a book he signed somewhere. I'll take a look and see if I can dig it up. That does look sweet, tho.

 

Thanks - I did a Google search for examples of Jack's signature, and there are a couple of interesting things to note:

 

1) In every instance Jack uses lower case letters, not block print capitals. First hand, I know this isn't conclusive, as I myself switch between them when writing (hey, I'm left-handed - give me a break!) But when I sign my name, I almost exclusively use -script.

 

2) The end of Jack's "J" doesn't come up and around, but consistently points downward.

 

That being said, there appear to be a an equal number of similarities, although those are significant variations. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

This may be why CGC doesn't make a forensic judgment, and gives such books a qualified label, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,954 posts
4.5 sounds about right . . . but, are you sure that's Jack's sig? Looks a little too neat to me -- can anyone chime in here? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Interesting points you made in the later post.

All I know is that I purchased this book as part of a lot from Sotheby's in 1994, I believe it was (I can check the year and lot number)...

 

I've never been keen on signatures (in fact this is the only book I have with a signature); this book just happened to have one.

 

I've always considered it an oddity in my collection, and wondered about the

signature as you do. I have seen similar signatures of Jack Kirby's, but confused-smiley-013.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20,227 posts
893scratchchin-thumb.gif I guess I agree with the gallery on this one 4.0 to 4.5 - I would go 5.0 IF and depending on the amount of gloss, colors and inks reflectivity retained on the cover. The wear all looks to be around the edges which is a bonus, however it looks as if there is some loss of gloss etc. on the cover. If this is NOT the case and the cover still presents well, I could see this book definitly garnering a 5.0 - I've seen Marvels from this era with Chipping, staining or oxidation at the staples garner a 4.0 and 4.5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,085 posts
4.5 sounds about right . . . but, are you sure that's Jack's sig? Looks a little too neat to me -- can anyone chime in here? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Well, I didn't want to say anything, but since you've chimed in already.

 

My first reaction was that the signature wasn't authentic. I'm no court expert, but I have been collecting autographs for over 15 years, written numerous articles, serve on the UACC Ethics Board, have done authentications for dealers and auction houses... so I have a pretty good eye for picking out fakes.

 

There are a number of problems with this signature in regard to formation. Further, the signature has a "slowly drawn" and heavy appearance that you don't see in authentic Kirby signatures. It doesn't "flow" like a naturally signed name does.

 

While I can't say definitively it is not authentic, I think the chances are high that it is a forgery. If it was mine, I would operate under the presumption the signature is not authentic.

 

If it is a fake, perhaps the forger thought it would be a good way to squeeze a few extra bucks out of a lower grade book.

 

confused-smiley-013.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474 posts

I don't know about you guys but signatures change over the years. Mine made a big change after signing bills at GM in receiving. Signing hundreds a day destroyed it. My sig now days looks nothing like my earlier days.

 

So I think the date of a signature means a lot too. For a proper comparison I think they need to be from the same era.

 

Personally I couldn't imagine any body falsely putting a signature on that comic. Maybe I'm just naive.

 

Here’s a bit of reasoning. If this comic was autographed at it’s inception I could see Jack as a young proud artist and he would like a signature with more flair then his normal sig. This would account for the heavy look zipper68 mentioned. As time went on and signing books became more commonplace for him he relaxed and signed like his normal sig.

Edited by Nefaria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,767 posts

i guess the "sig" could cost some grading points, but when i step back and look at this book in it's entirety, i think it's AT LEAST a 5.0. it doesn't have the degree of spine problems that most books in the 4.0-4.5 range tend to exhibit.

 

what seems odd to me is the entire "line" of the BC's left edge. it seems "way less" than straight............ 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

still a nice copy and one which, i'm sure, has Peter drooling............ devil.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,954 posts

 

While I can't say definitively it is not authentic, I think the chances are high that it is a forgery. If it was mine, I would operate under the presumption the signature is not authentic.

 

 

 

That is pretty much the assumption I have been making. In part, I posted this book

to get some reactions to the signature. Like I said, it is the only signed book I own

and I'm no expert.

But, it did come from Sothebys and they did call it out as a Kirby signature in the catalog....

Maybe a lawsuit.... 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Just kidding!

 

Anyway, thanks for all the input everybody!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,730 posts

 

While I can't say definitively it is not authentic, I think the chances are high that it is a forgery. If it was mine, I would operate under the presumption the signature is not authentic.

 

 

 

That is pretty much the assumption I have been making. In part, I posted this book

to get some reactions to the signature. Like I said, it is the only signed book I own

and I'm no expert.

But, it did come from Sothebys and they did call it out as a Kirby signature in the catalog....

Maybe a lawsuit.... 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Just kidding!

 

Anyway, thanks for all the input everybody!

 

Yet another Sotheby's "certification" 893scratchchin-thumb.gifwink.gifgrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,730 posts
Personally I couldn't imagine any body falsely putting a signature on that comic. Maybe I'm just naive.

 

screwy.gif

 

stooges.gif

 

 

Here’s a bit of reasoning. If this comic was autographed at it’s inception I could see Jack as a young proud artist and he would like a signature with more flair then his normal sig. This would account for the heavy look zipper68 mentioned. As time went on and signing books became more commonplace for him he relaxed and signed like his normal sig.

 

I'll say it's a bit - and, just a bit at that 27_laughing.gifinsane.gif Jack was, by no means, a "young proud artist" in 1962 - he was already a seasoned pro . . . makepoint.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,730 posts
4.5 sounds about right . . . but, are you sure that's Jack's sig? Looks a little too neat to me -- can anyone chime in here? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Well, I didn't want to say anything, but since you've chimed in already.

 

My first reaction was that the signature wasn't authentic. I'm no court expert, but I have been collecting autographs for over 15 years, written numerous articles, serve on the UACC Ethics Board, have done authentications for dealers and auction houses... so I have a pretty good eye for picking out fakes.

 

There are a number of problems with this signature in regard to formation. Further, the signature has a "slowly drawn" and heavy appearance that you don't see in authentic Kirby signatures. It doesn't "flow" like a naturally signed name does.

 

While I can't say definitively it is not authentic, I think the chances are high that it is a forgery. If it was mine, I would operate under the presumption the signature is not authentic.

 

If it is a fake, perhaps the forger thought it would be a good way to squeeze a few extra bucks out of a lower grade book.

 

confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Thanks Zip( oops!), my thoughts exactly hi.gif

Edited by divadrabnud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,085 posts
If this comic was autographed at it’s inception I could see Jack as a young proud artist and he would like a signature with more flair then his normal sig. This would account for the heavy look zipper68 mentioned. As time went on and signing books became more commonplace for him he relaxed and signed like his normal sig.

 

Actually, his later signature is much more ornate. People that sign autographs tend to get more ornate and artistic over time as they perfect their "autographing signature."

 

(Further, some artists have 2 signatures... their autograph signature and a stylized signature they use to sign their work. Norman Rockwell and Charles Schultz are 2 examples.)

 

I did find a Kirby signature on an old sketch that is similar to the signature on the FF 2. So, it is possible the signature on the FF 2 is a much earlier, less common iteration of his signature.

 

Until we can see a valid sampling of know authentic exemplars, I'd label this signature, "Undetermined."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474 posts

Jeez my bad, I just went and checked how old he was in '62. Who cares he was born in Aug 1917. 893whatthe.gif So ya his sig was set by 62. tonofbricks.gif

Edited by Nefaria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,632 posts

A few of questions:

If this book gets sent into CGC, would it receive a qualified grade?

Would CGC authenticate the signature? Or would it just say "Jack Kirby written in ink on cover"?

 

If they don't authenticate the signature, then doesn't it become "automatically" valid once encapsulated?

 

Sorry if slightly off the topic.

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,805 posts

Well, it's for sure they would not accept the signature as authentic. They would never do that, so that's out for sure. I think they might give you a choice of what you want. A universal label with the sig taken into consideration as a defect or a qualified label with it not taken into account as a defect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0