These signatures look right to me, and are in line with what I have in my copy of LotR signed in 1973. One has to make allowance for what writing implement Tolkien is using. The broad-nib pen used in the letter to Darrington is not the same as the finer-point pen used to sign the books.

Well, this is really interesting.

Trotter and Aelfwine on one side and Beren and laurel on the other.

The score is 2: 2 right now

As much as I hate to agree with Aelfwine about anything, they looked OK to me too (as a non-expert), hence why I asked Beren for the clarification on the red flags. My thought had been the same as Aelfwine's regarding the different pen types.

This all goes to show why signatures are a minefield. Without the best of provenance, you can't be sure what you have.

Red flags does not mean these can not be genuine... context can change everything. Without context these do not look right to me.
Also I have another history with these two books then others (having been offered them multiple times in the past, for very low prices). They were never offered to me in combination with any background info... appeared to have no origin or any tale to come with them.

What i'm interested to see is the other items... were there any other signed books? Or just these two?

Also, Trotter, I know (before his edit) was also doubting the signatures. Then reminded the auction and changed his opinion. This is how tricky it is. Only when you have them up close you can be certain. Then you can see the stops. And yes, Aelfwine is right about the difference between pens. Do you have a picture of your 1973 signature to compare? Because after 1972 his autograph changed again a lot - his final signature was slightly different again.

Beren wrote:

Also I have another history with these two books then others (having been offered them multiple times in the past, for very low prices). They were never offered to me in combination with any background info... appeared to have no origin or any tale to come with them.

This is the more interesting and compelling information.

Like I said, total minefield -- which is why I steer well clear.

Here for reference some examples of 'quick' signatures in pen, from the same period:
http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/f/ ... bertson_28_April_1972.jpg
http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/2/ ... rchfield_11_June_1972.png
And these are both done quickly - but they flow naturally, they have all correct lines, breakpoints...

I respect Beren's opinion so it took some time for the analysis but I still think these are genuine.

I will side with Trotter, Aelfwine, and Stu on this one.

Lokki wrote:
I respect Beren's opinion so it took some time for the analysis but I still think these are genuine.

I will side with Trotter, Aelfwine, and Stu on this one.

I think the veracity of the provenance is going to be the deciding factor in these. That Beren had encountered them previously without the same story is worrying. To me, the signatures themselves still look OK, but I've always run on the assumption that fakery is pretty easy, so the story is often more important.

Stu wrote:

I think the veracity of the provenance is going to be the deciding factor in these. That Beren had encountered them previously without the same story is worrying. To me, the signatures themselves still look OK, but I've always run on the assumption that fakery is pretty easy, so the story is often more important.

Completely agree, provenance is very helpful. Analyzing signatures alone is quite a tough job.

For what it's worth, here's another picture of a T.B. signed book...