Absolutely, blurry photo of the signature....£7K!!! Year after year I m still amazed

Aelfwine wrote:

No chance that's legit.

Besides agreeing with you based on the signature alone...

the dealer is selling a 12th printing of this edition. Which came out November, 1974.

https://www.tolkienbooks.us/lotr/us/hc ... llowship-of-the-ring-1967

Urulókë wrote:

Aelfwine wrote:

No chance that's legit.

Besides agreeing with you based on the signature alone...

the dealer is selling a 12th printing of this edition. Which came out November, 1974.

https://www.tolkienbooks.us/lotr/us/hc ... llowship-of-the-ring-1967

I knew it - he is the messiah! If only he had risen from the dead to do more than periodically sign unconvincing autographs.

With his Bic pen 😂

Signatures have always puzzled me. I get the blatant fakes being discussed, but is it really possible that any historical figure has a signature that is completely standardized, unchanging, and set in stone to the point that they never hesitated upon a signing or slightly altered a letter's exact style. I am not doubting this thread's assessments, I just never got how people can feel in any way confident about any signature unless it was witnessed. The amount of signature fraud in most areas of collecting must be extraordinary.

Now the Hobbit, that looks quite nice. Is it a true first, first??

Tapuvae wrote:

Signatures have always puzzled me. I get the blatant fakes being discussed, but is it really possible that any historical figure has a signature that is completely standardized, unchanging, and set in stone to the point that they never hesitated upon a signing or slightly altered a letter's exact style. I am not doubting this thread's assessments, I just never got how people can feel in any way confident about any signature unless it was witnessed. The amount of signature fraud in most areas of collecting must be extraordinary.

Agreed that provenance, witnesses, and supporting material (like a full inscription along with the signature in the correct handwriting) all make it easier to trust a signature. And yes, there is a lot of fraud out there in the collecting world.

Tapuvae wrote:

Now the Hobbit, that looks quite nice. Is it a true first, first??

The pictures and description seem to match Hammond's Bibliography entry, so I assume so.

I personally wouldn't trust any Tolkien signature 100% if there wasn't other accompanying writing that could be authenticated. I would guess that there are more forgeries out there than real ones, and who is really going to trust them in the future? You need a very good and provable backstory for anything that isn't part of a larger piece. It isn't like forging signatures is hard -- we only notice the ones that are done badly.

Finally...£2308

Jeez, that Puffin first has really gone up in price.