Double signed copy of Crucifix?

LickTheStar

Sad Flower in the Sand
Over 1000 posts
So after getting through my backlog of books, I finally got around to looking harder at my copy of Crucifix in a Deathhand and there are two signatures present in this particular one.

There is the regular signed and dated signature on the back near the limitation page, but right after the handwritten letter reproduced in the front, I found another signature in black ink that looks accurate...

Haven't heard much about the book that includes two signatures, so I wasn't sure if this was another reproduction, or an actual signature.

I apologize for the bad quality, my current camera is dead so I had to revert to.... an OLD one. If I get my scanner up and running I can probably get that scanned tomorrow. Of course, maybe this is common in all copies...

And hey, thanks for more help. You guys are sleuths!

IMG_2058.jpg IMG_2059.jpg IMG_2060.jpg
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Over 5000 posts
There is no other signature present in any copy that I have ever seen (I have had at least 5 different copies over the years.) I have to say that the signature looks suspect in the photo, but it is hard to tell. Also, who would forge a signature in an already signed book? It would make no sense. But, it also makes no sense that someone would have Buk sign the book a second time unless he was personalizing it to them.

This is odd.

Bill
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Over 1000 posts
Not to contradict you Bill (what you say makes sense) but possibly someone handed the book to him at a reading or elsewhere and he went ahead and signed, not caring that all copies are already signed. I could see that happening.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Over 5000 posts
That is certainly a possibility. It just seems odd that someone would bring a signed book to get resigned. Also, if this was a reading copy and someone ran into him, I can see it signed, but this is a bit of a large book to bring to the park to read.

Still, it is completely possible that I'm wrong (and hope that I am).

The good news is that there is no financial reason to forge a signed book, so I can see no reason why any forger would take the chance and forge this book, when the second signature adds little to the value.

That is what makes me think that David is right and it is authentic, although a bit unusual.

Bill
 

mjp

Your Host
Moderator
Founding member
Over 5000 posts
I have to say that the signature looks suspect in the photo, but it is hard to tell.
I'm afraid I had the same impression when I first saw the black signature. As Bill said, it's hard to tell since the pic is shaky, but that "Ch" appears to be off. Also that it's double signed but the second signature has no cartoon or personalization - that is weird. Maybe you can scan it at some point and give us a better look.
 

HenryChinaski

Founding member
Over 1000 posts
i agree. it kinda resembles a later sig...but the pic is so blurry that its really hard to tell. but, my first instinct was, forgery. that would bring down its worth a lot, I'm sure.
 

LickTheStar

Sad Flower in the Sand
Over 1000 posts
This is odd.
That's my feeling too. All copies are already called to be signed, so why forge one? Very odd indeed. I'll get a better scan or photo of this up in a day or so and we'll see what's going on...

It LOOKS like a bad forgery to me too, but... I've only been looking at signatures for a year or so, so I figured I' ask you guys.
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Over 1000 posts
If the signature looks good in a better scan, perhaps the owner of the book asked Buk to sign it, hoping for an inscription and/or a drawing, something extra, but all he/she got was a simple signature.

I've seen other examples of double signed books -- not this title but numbered & signed editions by other authors that were also signed again by the author, with or without an inscription. It happens. Odd, but not a reason to doubt it's authenticity just based on the likelihood of a double signature. As Bill says, there's no motive for forgery unless there's a really good inscription, a drawing, something that adds interest. I wouldn't be bothered by this second signature if I was thinking of buying the book -- it's a freebie.
 

LickTheStar

Sad Flower in the Sand
Over 1000 posts
I figure that... it really doesn't detract from the value too much and the book has very little other problems so if it turns out to be a fake, I'll just be more confused than when I started. Or at least AS confused.
 

Purple Stickpin

Over 5000 posts
A better scan would be helpful; at least for our opinions on the veracity of the signature. But you shouldn't necessarily be too concerned. There are a couple of attributes that bother me about the sig, but after all, it's only an opinion.
 

roni

Over 5000 posts
yes, make a better scan please.
from what i've seen, it looks Not legit.
the 'C' the 'h' the 'B' - they all look unlike what i've seen so far.

but i sure can see someone letting him sign it (again).
i have thought about that too, when i went to a reading of an author who - 10 years earlier - had already signed it to me at another reading. i thought it would be funny to have it signed by him every time i see him live. i didn't do it in the end though.

and like most of you, i too wouldn't see the point in forge a sig in an already signed book.

this is really strange.

maybe he was drunk. rumor has it, that Buk had one or two drinks from time to time. though i'm not sure about that.
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Over 1000 posts
Not to be an extremist, but I've seen triple signed books. It happens. Maybe the author or book owner/recipient forgets that it's a signed edition, and it gets signed again. And once more. I like things like that -- human imperfection has its own genius.
 

LickTheStar

Sad Flower in the Sand
Over 1000 posts
Here's the signature scan. It still doesn't look right and I'm curious about it. But if its a forgery... I'll just be really confused.

signature scan.jpg
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Moderator
Founding member
Over 1000 posts
Yes it looks slightly off from most signatures you'll see, but most sigs are from later books and I am assuming that this signature was done by someone in the sixties. Early signatures I've seen on letters and so forth also look more hesitant.

I don't have a copy of Crucifix but I wonder how the texture of the paper would affect a signature?

I wouldn't personally say that its a definite forgery. It is more puzzling than worrying huh?
 

LickTheStar

Sad Flower in the Sand
Over 1000 posts
Exactly. I'm not planning on reselling, and the other sig is legit... It's just weird.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Over 5000 posts
Hi,
The signature looks a bit wrong to me. If I was buying a book and that was the only signature in it, I'd pass on it. As we know 100% that one of the signatures is authentic, it would not bother me that much.

Plus, they could both be legit, but I have to say that the black signature is worrisome.

Best,
Bill
 

Purple Stickpin

Over 5000 posts
It certainly does look suspect, but as HS mentioned, some of those earlier sigs were more tentative, and as Bill mentioned, the other sig is fine, so not to worry.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Over 5000 posts
The "B" in Bukowski is different from the legit signature, but if Buk wrote the signature in the front much later than the legit one, that could explain it.
Anyway, it's a copy of Crucifix with the legit signature, and that's what's important!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

roni

Over 5000 posts
... I wonder how the texture of the paper would affect a signature?
i'd definitely say, the texture does affect it.
the sig looks very slow and carefully written, which is exactly the way you'd have to do it with a thin pen like this. (the 'original' sigs in this edition were, as we all know, made with a thick and soft pen, which obviously made him able to write faster and more fluent.)
so it all may turn out fine.
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Over 1000 posts
I agree: both the paper and the pen will affect and can slow down the signature. Some perfectly good pens skip on perfectly good paper, so you have to write very slowly and deliberately to make them work. Perhaps Bukowski knew this from using the same pen on another copy, or on other paper, and he was taking his time with it. I can't imagine why anyone would forge a signature like this in a signed book. If it was just to add value (and it's doubtful that it does that when you've already got a signed edition), you'd think they would up it with a drawing or inscription. I may be all wet, but I suspect it's real. The C looks odd but the "ukowski" in Bukowski looks okay to me. But I'm not an expert on his sig. There are others here who are.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Over 5000 posts
Hi,
Like with other crimes, forgery has to have a motive. Attempting to forge a signature in an already signed book gives the forger no motive. If this signature was in a 23rd printing, I would say that there is HUGE motive and that motive is profit.

With a complete lack of motive, I would have to side with it being odd looking, but authentic.

Rekrab is right. If it had an inscription to JANE or a poem written, I could see the motive, but that is not the case.

Best,Bill

p.s. You would have to be VERY, VERY talented to pull off forging a full inscription in Bukowski's hand. 99.9% of forgeries would never make it past this forum and that is a somewhat easy signature. Add the handwriting and you would have to be DAMN good to pull one of those over on this bunch....
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Over 5000 posts
Could it have been a previous owner just having fun by trying to copy Buk's signature? After all, the book wasn't worth much in the sixties, so value wasn't a consideration...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Over 5000 posts
$7.50 in the 60's was expensive enough that someone would not have messed with the book for fun.

Bill
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Over 5000 posts
I see! That's the end of that theory then...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LickTheStar

Sad Flower in the Sand
Over 1000 posts
Could it have been a previous owner just having fun by trying to copy Buk's signature? After all, the book wasn't worth much in the sixties, so value wasn't a consideration...
http://www.1960sflashback.com/1968/Economy.asp

A new house was $26,600. So yeah even $7 is probably more than most would have tinkered with. Unless it was a billionaire or something, I suppose. They had billionaires then, right?

I mean... the Beatles at least. Right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Over 5000 posts
Hi,
They certainly had millionaires, but I'm not sure if they had any billionaires yet. If they did, it was just a few. (according to Wikipedia) John D. Rockefeller became the first billionaire on September 29, 1916. Most of the billionaries at that time are household names (at least in the US). Astor, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Mellon.

But I digress...

Bill
 

Purple Stickpin

Over 5000 posts
http://www.1960sflashback.com/1968/Economy.asp

A new house was $26,600. So yeah even $7 is probably more than most would have tinkered with. Unless it was a billionaire or something, I suppose. They had billionaires then, right?

I mean... the Beatles at least. Right?
The Beatles were not billionaires, I can assure you of that. Well off, yes, and deservedly so. Refer to Taxman. As I understand it, the British tax system took as much as 90-95% of the upper tier of income at that time. Several hundred thousand dollars in yearly income would make a man or woman rich in those days. The Beatles, individually, probably had that and then some, but not anything close to billions.

Couple that with the debacle that was Apple, along with attorney fees to rid Allen Klein from the fold, and they lost a fair bit. Millionaires? Yup. Billionaires? No way.

But yes, here in the US, $7 in the 1960's must have been like $30 today. That doesn't preclude a teenager practicing his signature in a book that he's have no idea would be a treasure 40 years from then.

I'm done.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Over 5000 posts
But yes, here in the US, $7 in the 1960's must have been like $30 today. That doesn't preclude a teenager practicing his signature in a book that he's have no idea would be a treasure 40 years from then.
Only $30? That's the price of a CD over here, so maybe my theory still holds up after all...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LickTheStar

Sad Flower in the Sand
Over 1000 posts
But yes, here in the US, $7 in the 1960's must have been like $30 today. That doesn't preclude a teenager practicing his signature in a book that he's have no idea would be a treasure 40 years from then.
I'd like to think that ANYTHING signed to anyone over a certain age (hopefully by the time 12 or 13 hits) would know enough to not deface it. But then again, probably not...

All I know is that my son is gonna get a beatdown if he takes any of my books and ruins 'em. That and a summer job to buy them back.

I add this pre-emptively: "Jerk..."
 

Gerard K H Love

Appreciate your friends
Over 5000 posts
In 1960 a coke was 5 or 10 cents now $1.00 to $1.89 at least 10 times as much. So a $7.00 book would be $70 to $100. or so. I think Bukowski was having a tough time with the texture and was trying to be neat. Hence, your book is priceless, worth maybe $20,000,000. or so.
 
Top