burning on ebay (1 Viewer)

1fsh2fsh

I think that I think too much
Founding member
Item number: 400059703825 gotta be one of the worst drawings I have ever seen. not saying it isn't real, just saying... (mods put this post where it belongs please :o)

buksig27353.jpg
 
thanks for the link bukfan... sometimes I feel so inept. I'm thinking maybe he was just hammered or something. I've got a couple of pretty sloppy ones here.
 
Although there is a real sloppiness about the drawing and sig, there's nothing there that suggests anything but a genuine article.

I have a few sloppy ones too. Signed books, I mean.
 
it looks real to me, but two things bother me about it.

1) It is sogned on the blank FFEP, not the title page or cover (which is where he would normally sign things) and

2) It is really sloppy.

Still, the drawing and signature look authentic enough that I cannot say that it is a fake, but it is not convincing enough to me to say that it is real.

Bill
 
He wants $300 as a starting bid. I would rather buy a numbered BSP copy with a drawing of the little man, and perhaps pay a bit more. I think $300 is a bit steep for a soft cover. It does'nt even say if it's a 1st printing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Damn, that's a tough signature/drawing to judge. In addition to Bill's concerns, the signature looks very rushed, and when it's that rushed there's usually no drawing...I wouldn't say it's not genuine, but I wouldn't buy it either.
 
i think it's real- the B is the dead giveaway in my experience. the CH is smooth, too. i just think $300 is way too much for that book. but i've been wrong the last two times i said a certain book wouldn't sell at the price it was listed at, so i'll shut up.
 
the signature looks very rushed, and when it's that rushed there's usually no drawing...

good point. I was thinking the same. but Jordons points about the CH and the B are what I thought also. still way overpriced and somewhat suspect. one could do much better for $300. (shit, now that I look again I'm not sure that I have ever seen the little hook at the top of the B)
 
I saw this too and was immediately pissed off.
If practice makes perfect,
this guy needs more time forging Buk's signature
(if seller is here, sorry, so sue me).
I've never read his last name as 'Bucki'
and maybe he was in a rush,
but again, like someone said,
he wouldn't have drawn his little man then.
imho

(+ I agree with Bill's trepidations, and it was mjp who rightly pointed out the rushed sig then a drawing paradox)
 
i don't know guys, i think that we as a group sometimes tend to cast doubt on any signature that's not picture perfect, and an incidental signature as this is isn't always going to look as neat as the ones that he put in the bsp books. with an incidental signature, there will always be variation there. so, as long as what i think are the key points of the signature - again, the B and the CH - are clean, i'm inclined to think it's real. i don't buy the "if he was in a hurry, he wouldn't have done the sketch" thing... to me, it just looks like he was probably drunk at a reading or something. i mean, really? this is a forgery, with the drawing and everything? it's one hell of a good forgery if it is.

it kind of reminds me of this movie i saw about a painting that may or may not be a jackson pollock painting... even thought all kinds of forensic evidence proved it was a genuine pollock, the art world wouldn't agree that it was, because they just kept saying it didn't "sing" like a pollock does.
 
Hi,
In the enlarged photo (#1) I have real issues. If you notice there is ink welled up at the stopping points (top of h, s, & k). These are telltale signs of tracing, where the forger hesitates, while Buk would not have hesitated (especially on a rushed signature like this). I'm not accusing the seller of doing this and am not even 100% sure that this is the case. It could be authentic. I'm just not comfortable with it. I would not pay $50 for it as I could never be comfortable selling it and would not want to pass on a possible forgery into the market.

If it is real, it is overpriced and worth maybe $150, not $300. If it is a fake, it is a pretty damn good fake.

Bill
 
Bill: you've got a good eye. You're right about hesitation points. On the other hand, would a gloppy (or is it goopy?) pen possibly create effects like that? Or would the gloppy pen do it at randon points and not the tops of letters?
 
Both. ;)

I don't think anyone is saying, "This is an obvious fake, stay away!" Like I said, I wouldn't call it fake, but I wouldn't buy it. I think that's what Bill is saying too. If I had to choose between definitely genuine or definite forgery on this one I would come down on the genuine side.





But I still wouldn't buy it. ;)
 
David;
Yes, this is possible, but I would expect that the gloopiness would be at the beginning of the stroke, not in the arc. The arc is a hesitation point. When you start writing, the ink would normally gloop up at the beginning, I would think.

Again, I agree with mjp. Could be real, could be a fake, but I am not comfortable saying either.

For $300, you can get a book that is 100% genuine and certifiably genuine, so I would not pay $300 for one that may or may not be real.

Bill

p.s. I have seen some forgeries in the past where they looked fine in the photos on ebay, but when they arrived, they were VERY VERY bad forgeries. I could even see the pencil where they traced first and then went over with a sharpie SLOWLY. Because of this, I could see, on the back of the page, every time that he stopped and started again. Of course, I got my money back and they did not want the books back. I stamped them FORGERY in permanent ink across the signature and sold them as reading copies....
 
it looks good to me at a glance. Somewhat overpriced, but OK. For that price, you could get a HARDBACK signed, numbered first if you are patient.

Bill
 
The drawing does look a bit slanted. I haven't seen too many like this one (and I've seen many like this one, if you follow). The Charles looks perfect, but the Bukowski looks very rushed; more like his later sigs. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. And there are a few characteristics in the sig that make it look just fine to me.

Overall, I'd say it's good. But I wouldn't buy it at that price. That's maybe $175 tops in this market. I bought a first signed and similarly doodled hardcover of Hollywood for $175 about a year ago, if that puts things into perspective.

And this looks to be the very same item we were discussing back in July. See posts above.

Disclaimer: my opinion only.
 
On any signature (not referring to anything about this one) sometimes the pen skips and the writer will go back over and redo missing portions so as to "fix" a messed up signature. This can make it look doctored or over-worked. I do this myself when I sign because the pen I use skips on some types of paper.

But if you see pencil tracing under the ink as Bill did on one, there is no way to explain away that away. Looking at the one above, it just feels real to me, even with the pooled ink. But I could be wrong.
 
... That "s" in Charles really looks labored and like it was written very slowly.

For such a fast signature, it looks like it took quite a while to write.

I'm still not in either camp, but scared enough that I would not touch this one....

bill
 
Watched the video, mjp, and all I can say is wow ... WOW!

Not enough time in the day for me to even get my laundry done and these guys are looping the shit down at their local, friendly Starbucks.

Wow ...

Why don't they come over here and loop my life so I can get the damn dishes done.

Grrrrr ....
 
If a guy sat in a room all day just writing thusands of fake signatures and little man doodles while studying genuine examples, and he had some artistic talent, he would get so familiar with the moves that he would eventually be able to do it with speed and grace, and it would look effortless, and it would be very hard to tell it's a fake. It might take several big marathon sessions, but he would soon get to that skill level. Then he could sign a few hundred books and sell them for $300 each or whatever. That thought would make me leery of any signed Bukowski book sold on eBay except those with solid documentation, such as the BSP hardcovers.
 
There are some good books about historical document fakers, and the thing they rely on more than their knowledge of old inks and papers is people's willingness to believe that what they are buying is genuine, even if all signs indicate it is not. A large part of the con is selling the item convincingly.

I think a lot of people who buy questionable signatures want to believe they are real and they are getting "a good deal" on them, and the rest just don't know or care.

Anyone who does know the difference, or thinks that they do (us), will shy away from the questionable stuff. I don't like to see shysters and cocksuckers profiting from deception, but there's no way to stop that.

That's just a general observation, not a comment on this particular quickly-becoming-infamous signature.
 
I have a book here on famous forgers. Some of these forgeries even ended up on the block at Southeby's. It took experts pleading with them to get them removed. That was after the full color catalog was already printed. In one case, the expert told the auction house who the forger was and provided examples. In this case, that I read about the majority of the autographs in one auction (I'm not sure of the auction house, but they were a big one) were from one forger and that comprised a majority of the auction....

You are right, mjp. They looked close enough to fool those wealthy investors that want something cool to put in their collection, but not enough to fool the true experts.

Some of these forgers were SO prolific that their forgeries still show up even though it has been 50 years since the forgeries were discovered.

Bill
 
Forged Bukowski signatures are all too common. I wonder if anyone has attempted to fake an entire manuscript? Meaning they get old paper, a typewriter, make up a poem or story that sounds like something Bukowski would have written, "sign" it, and sell it as a signed unpublished manuscript. It would take research, good knowledge of Buk's work and bio, and writing talent, but it could be done. I wonder if the average collector would somehow sense that it's a fake? To what degree does intuition enter into evaluating the authenticy of a manuscript?
 
It could be done, but there are very few of us out there that would know to use the right paper, right typewriter, sign it correctly for the period, etc. Those of us that have this knowledge, are, I believe so opposed to the idea of putting anything like this out there, that there is not much worry. I could see someone doing it, but not getting it all right and thereby being exposed.

Bill
 
You're right. It would have to be the right typer for the date, and paper to match the time period. And all the details, nuances of the writing (and of the typing itself, as a physical act) would have to be right. A good job for a master forger. If it didn't ring true, they would be exposed and it would get harder to pull off the next fake.
 
even the flaws in his typewriter could be key. There were certain characters that were damaged and a period ms would have the "correct" flaws...

Bill
 
It can be done. The guys who forged Hitler's diaries and Howard Hughes autobiography almost got away with it...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
True, about the defects on the typewriter keys. It becomes like forensics, looking for small clues. A really clever forger could bend and dent the right letters on the typewriter to simulate what Bukowski typed on, but that would be making quite an effort. Most crooks don't work that hard. They count on people being gullible.
 
It can be done. The guys who forged Hitler's diaries and Howard Hughes autobiography almost got away with it...
"Almost" got away with it is the same as saying, "didn't get away with it." Saying they almost got away with it only seems to make the case that it can't be done.

Anyway, I think it would be harder to forge a Bukowski manuscript than a Hitler diary. Consider how many people could authoritatively say that they can identify Hitler's handwriting. Now consider how many people have read Bukowski's work and seen his manuscripts.

I can tell you that more than 20,000 people visit that manuscript section here on the site every month. That doesn't make them experts, but it tells me that there are a shitload of people out there who at least have a feel for how they should look. And read.

The hardest part would be faking the writing. Try it yourself if you doubt that.
 
Last edited:
Well put, mjp. And your new siggie makes me wonder if you are going to change your username to Jell-o Biafra. Not sure why I say that. You know, just thinkin'.
 
"Almost" got away with it is the same as saying, "didn't get away with it." Saying they almost got away with it only seems to make the case that it can't be done.

Anyway, I think it would be harder to forge a Bukowski manuscript than a Hitler diary.

Good point! But there must be some forgeries out there. The problem is you can't prove it since they've gotten away with it.
However, I don't think it's totally out of the question to forge a Buk poem or a short story. It would of course take an expert in forgery to pull it off, and he would need the right paper and the right typewriter with letters worn in the right places etc. The writings he did on computer would probably be easier to forge. Not that any forgery would be easy to pull off...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...your new siggie makes me wonder if you are going to change your username to Jell-o Biafra.
It's an Iggy quote from a Michigan show where bikers were pelting them with crap (it was kind of a local sport in Detroit in those days to go throw stuff at the Stooges). The show is on a record called Metallic K.O. I think Iggy is funny on the record, but some people find it disturbing.

We're the hardest working band in the business...I don't care if we're the best.

Our next selection tonight for all you Hebrew ladies in the audience is entitled, "Rich Bitch."

Well, well ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your kind indulgence. And for this evenings next selection I would be proud to present a song that was co-written by my mother, entitled, "I got my cock in my pocket." A-one, two, fuck you pricks!

It'll all be over soon.

Who wants this gen-u-ine cock belt - you want that honey?

Let's get a towel for the egg yolk...I don't want to be caught with yolk on my face.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top