I googled it to compare signatures an it looks to be good but just can't tell for sure..diggummup said:I hope the signature is authentic. Nice find. Keep us posted.
creeper71 said:I googled it to compare signatures an it looks to be good but just can't tell for sure..diggummup said:I hope the signature is authentic. Nice find. Keep us posted.
is there a museum near you that you could get a opinion from??SEANO said:creeper71 said:I googled it to compare signatures an it looks to be good but just can't tell for sure..diggummup said:I hope the signature is authentic. Nice find. Keep us posted.
Thanks, I did the same. Viewed in person, and comparing signatures, authenticity is very convincing. But it would obviously take an expert to authenticate. My attempt at a photo just doesn't do the signature justice. I'm sure taking it through glass isn't helping the photo quality either.
1) This might be an 1888 Republican League campaign print of some type and by all indications (framing & board-backing, etc.) from the photographs in your post, it appears to be historically correct for the period.watercolor said:WOW!
Very nice find indeed!
A couple of observations/suggestions to ponder. . .
1) This might be an 1888 Republican League campaign print of some type and by all indications (framing & board-backing, etc.) from the photographs in your post, it appears to be historically correct for the period.
2) Harrison's signature looks legit but appears very bold in comparison to the writing below it and seems too perfectly aligned/centered for Harrison to have personally signed this print.
3) You may want to consider removing this print from its non-archival matting under the glass (this will have to be done at some time in the future). . . but save all the original framing materials. Then have an "expert" look at the print using a jeweler's loupe to see if it may be a collotype, silver gelatin, or half-tone (small dots) reproduction. This should help in further narrowing the date a bit and you'll also know if he personally signed this print, or if it was a "one-piece", mass-produced reproduction.
Again, VERY cool find. . . keep us posted
SeaninNH said:First let me say... That is a great picture and for $5 you can't go wrong.
Now.. I can't be sure from a picture on a screen, but from what I see I don't think the signature is ink. From what I see it looks like it's printed.
There are a few reaons that I say this.
The lines look to be a consistant thickness and are solid.
There are no fade spots that there would be if done with a felt pen.
There is no pooling or expanded width on stroke changes as if done with a quill.
It's not faded at all. It looks black. It would look greay(ish) if it was over 100 year old ink.
Here is a comparison of a real signature and yours.
Yours is the top one. They are both inverted and sharpened to show the lines better.
Not meant to be a downer just giving my observations.
I've been told and know by my own experience that a signature from that time period wouldn't be black or gray but a rusty brown due to the level of iron they used back then to make ink. Pen ink from that period tends to fade away and appear opaque and light rusty brown and that signature is to dark and black. I have seen many old documents and have a few myself like my great grandfathers discharge from the Navy and his and his wife's pention. That being said it's a great find and has value but I believe also it's a print. And there might be other presidents because this might have belonged to a set of presidential prints, all signed, all framed to hang on a hallway wall in a politicians office or a city hall. But please keep us all posted and it's a great $5 find. And I think the signature comparison is great but I know myself that things I sign never are completely the same so I tend to disagree with some handwriting experts opinions. However, the picture is super and I still believe it's a print and is a collectable and worth more than you paid for it, GREAT FIND !! IMHO, Woodstock
