Tolkien Signed Book

Deborah Whitehead writes, "My aunty reckons it was about 1971. Her friend was working at The London as a trainee Almoner & the Almoner (a maiden lady) told her that her parents were nieghbours of the Tolkiens she thinks London but not sure yet. As the trainee lived with my aunt & knew she was a fan, asked if she could take her copy for a signature. My aunt is emailing her friend to ask her the year precisely, the name of the Almoner & the address. Hopefully she will remember the details & I will let you all know"

More details to follow...

I would have to say No, I don't think it is a real Tolkien signature and is a forgery.

It does not look right when compared with genuine Tolkien signatures, to my mind appears to be a pretty poor fake.

A real problem, is that 4 dots appear in the signature, only three should be in the location that they are, the last one should be after the signature, and they are all in wrong place on the signature.

What do others think?

I agree - the 'T' looks wrong to me.

This sample deviates in significant ways from the majority of Tolkien's signatures, most particularly his autographs. There is an extant sample in pencil of a signature he placed in a book to indicate ownership that demonstrates less care than his normal signature, but whenever he signed an autograph, the evidence is that Tolkien was both decorative and meticulous, neither of which characterizes this sample. This signature is relatively careless and erratic, with about half a dozen hard "stops" where there is extra inking and added pressure--these are antithetical to his fountain-pen style. Even Tolkien's "scrawled" known signatures in ball-point pen or in pencil have clearer and more fluid definition than the one presented here (the rapid deterioration of the latter part of the signature is interesting in this sample). If he signed this book he was in a great hurry and had no personal pen on him and took little interest in the event--all of which is possible, but seems unlikely. The stylized flourish in the K is the only thing that gives one pause here. While the sample can't be ruled out completely, it would have to rank as just about the most careless autograph of Tolkien's in circulation. Of course, none of this is of concern if the signature can be proved and unless someone feels it should increase potential resale value.

J Matthew Melton thanks for your reply, could you give members a Bio so that we know a bit more about you.

I believe it's infrequent use of blue ink on Tolkien signatures. I put a signature with blue ink the same period (letter to Robertsen April 28, 1972) in comparison. And you realize a series of differences. The size of the initial letters. The size of the "O". The top line of the "T".

Eduardo

This one looks bad... really bad. I wouldn't pay five dollars for this copy.

eBay Item #131634312594

http://radziwill.us/tojrrttwoto1.html

Jlong wrote:
This one looks bad... really bad. I wouldn't pay five dollars for this copy.

eBay Item #131634312594

http://radziwill.us/tojrrttwoto1.html

And verified by Dr. Radwell, a member of the "American Institute of Forensic Examiners"..... Which doesn't *seem* to exist. Maybe he means the ACFEI, but you would think he would know what it was called, if he were a member.

I hate autograph sellers with a passion. They sell products that usually have no provenance, that we are supposed to accept as being legitimate, because they are "experts in this kind of thing".