Signed bookplate . . . (1 Viewer)

the"B" looks weird, but the "Charles" looks pretty good.


I'm not sure. The more I look at it, the "Bukowski" looks wrong, but maybe he was running out of space.
I don't think did it as a practice, but if somebody came to him with one, sure.

And looking at it, I don't think that's a traditional bookplate with adhesive on the back. It looks like an index card that was taped in.
Date and "Bukowski" look wrong. But who knows? By 1992 his signature was kind of a scrawl...

I'm suspicious of it. As mjp says, by '92 his signature was erratic. But generally, it was missing detail. In this case, the "Bukowski" contains detail that you don't generally see (and violates a key characteristic that will remain unwritten here). Also, the end of "Charles" is good, but the beginning is a mess. It may be authentic (and I'm not trying to point any fingers), but I wouldn't buy it, and I wouldn't think I could sell it.
i'd be wary of bookplates in general cause someone could just try as many as they wanted till they got a convincing one.

that 'B' especially looks off - as well as the 'k' - but being a late sig, who knows.
It seems like 75 percent (or more) of the time, fake sigs come from Europe. I don't think signature forgery ever got as popular in the U.S. -- probably because it takes less effort and time to just mug someone...

Users who are viewing this thread