261263261322 (1 Viewer)

[roni]

since when is Scott Harrison selling forgeries?
or do we have to readjust everything we ever knew about Buk-signatures?

 

[hank solo]

roni, I don't think that that is a forgery. Maybe its the perspective putting you off. The type looks legit.

Edit: Okay, the Charles isn't particular 'crisp' but I think it has enough going for it to pass mustard with me at least.

 

[roni]

of course I didn't expect Scott to sell real forgeries. just wanted to share this extraordinaire signature as - to me - nearly everything about it screams fake.

(the "ch", the "B", the second "k", the obvious un-fluency of the whole thing, making it look like a children's writing...)

 

[hank solo]

Compare with this one from 1970:

 

[mjp]

It would be tough to fake that broken/misaligned 'e' key.

That is a wonky signature, but something tells me a forger would write a date under the signature, since most manuscripts are dated. But Bukowski didn't start dating the manuscript until 1971.

Plus it's Scott Harrison. He's a nut, but I would trust him on any Bukowski item.

He's asking a premium price for that combo though, and I don't think it's justified. Especially since Martin trimmed the manuscript to make it fit into the book, which makes it less valuable. As a manuscript, anyway.