What you think? (1 Viewer)

BilkoJoe

Founding member
I was preparing a few auctons for eBay and on close inspecion of a copy of Dang n the Tourn... i'm not sure abot the sig... all opinions welcome, before I think of listing.. thanks in advance

dang.jpg
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Yeah. The sig looks bad, but the numbers look right. If the cloth is the right color and everything else looks right, I would just chalk it up to Buk signing his name a bit different.

Lucklily there are so many little issues that BSP made available to check these for authenticity. Comparing the numbers in red to a known example would also help certify it. Number 89 should be nearly the same writing as your example, for instance.

Bill
 

BilkoJoe

Founding member
Ok thanks folks... i got a genuine (if poor) sig and inflated idea of value... I'll list when/if the dollar improves lol. cheers Joe
 

mjp

Founding member
Ouch - that wouldn't ease my mind at all...the "4" in Bilko's is wrong, and the neither the pen or the signature look close compared to the second dangling image...

He could have switched pens, sure. But I don't know, man. The numerals in Bilko's look like they were written by a European. And I do not remember a lot of examples of Bukowski underlining his signature.

Of course if the binding and colophon are correct, what can you say. It's probably right. Sure looks weird though.
 
And I do not remember a lot of examples of Bukowski underlining his signature.

Valid point about the underline, mjp. As for changing his pen, I'm assuming you mean for the signature, as Buk never numbered them himself (this is not for you, mjp, but for others on this site who may not know this); Barbara Martin or someone else at BSPress typically did that, if I recall correctly. Also, Dangling... was one example where at least some of the numbering was obviously done by someone other than the usual person, and the numerals show a wide variety of styles. I have copy 313, and I have no doubts to its veracity, but the numerals look nothing like usual.

A thread I posted a while back about this issue is here:

https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=2657

Although the photo is no longer there (and I don't have access to a scanner right now), the issue of the numerals on Dangling... is discussed.
 

1fsh2fsh

I think that I think too much
Founding member
I still say the damn things legit... maybe just a drunken night or hung over morning...
 
i have copy 243, and it looks identical to copy 324 pictured above. copy 49 just doesn't look right to me, but as mentioned before, the spine and title page don't lie...bilko joe, maybe you could post some more pics?
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
the spine and title page don't lie...

Hi,

Not wishing to cast any doubt on anyone, but there is one case scenario that is always possible:

I have at least two BSP hardcovers here that are wrong. what I mean is that they used the wrong color spine. One is a copy of Barfly from BSP. The cloth indicates that it is a signed edition, but it is not signed. I bought it and have treated it as a trade edition, variant. I forget what the other one is, but I have seen the NYGs come out once in a while unsigned in Hardcover, pre 1994, when all hardcover NYGs should have been signed. My point being that someone could get a hold of one of these books and could forge the signature and number. That would then create a signed edition that would look perfect in every way, except for the signature and number. The colophon would read right. The title page would be in color and the cloth strip would be right.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I know that BilkoJoe is a good guy. I just hope that it is real and that no one passed off a fishy copy to him.

Black Sparrow made it nearly impossible to get a bad first edition, signed copy. There are not many wrong cloth strips out ther, but there are enough that the signature has to be right and you cannot always 100%, without fail rely on the other first issue points to certify the authenticity.

Sorry to be a downer.

Bill
 

BilkoJoe

Founding member
i have copy 243, and it looks identical to copy 324 pictured above. copy 49 just doesn't look right to me, but as mentioned before, the spine and title page don't lie...bilko joe, maybe you could post some more pics?

Cheers Try these apples...

dang_1.jpg dang_2.jpg dang_3.jpg

Thanks Bilko..
 
You are correct Bill. I have several unsigned limited editions that are supposed to be signed. Not only from BSP, but from several other publishers as well. You are right again in that I also treat them as variants of trade editions. I've often wondered if I should note "unsigned" on the colophon page to avoid problems in the future.

On second thought, I wonder if some or all were sent to me as "salesman's samples" by publishers, they certainly were intended for my personal use, and it would be legitimate to mark them as Presentation Copies. In other words, they were complimentary. What's the take on that idea from others.
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Moderator
Founding member
I'll still take a punt on Joe's Dangling for $52.50 :D

Bill W, I see your point about avoiding future problems, but I would against marking an unmarked book, if that makes sense. Its a tough issue, but buyer beware huh?
 

chronic

old and in the way
You are correct Bill. I have several unsigned limited editions that are supposed to be signed. Not only from BSP, but from several other publishers as well. You are right again in that I also treat them as variants of trade editions. I've often wondered if I should note "unsigned" on the colophon page to avoid problems in the future.

On second thought, I wonder if some or all were sent to me as "salesman's samples" by publishers, they certainly were intended for my personal use, and it would be legitimate to mark them as Presentation Copies. In other words, they were complimentary. What's the take on that idea from others.

I would suggest that you don't mark them at all, unless you want to instantly lower their value fairly substantially.
 
does anyone else have a copy with a low number like bilko to compare it to? maybe it really was buk with a hangover and a fine-tipped pen signing the first 100 or so...

thanks for posting more photos, bilko. quite a mysterious book you have there....
 
the closest thing i could find on the net(#92, no photo). i suppose you could contact the bookseller and see if they could email a pic or describe it to ya....

Dangling in the Tournefortia
Bukowski, Charles.
[30 Day Returns Policy]
Bookseller:
Burke's Book Store
(Memphis, TN, U.S.A.)
Bookseller Rating: Book Price:
US$ 300.00
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping:
[Rates & Speeds]
About the Book Bookseller & Payment Information

Description: Very minor shelfwear to bottom edge, tight and crisp. A bright, lovely copy. Protected by glassine wrapper which shows only minor rubbing. #92 of 350. Bookseller Inventory # 020625​
 

mjp

Founding member
Well, not knowing exactly the logistics of their signing system, I would think Bukowski signed first, then they were numbered. Otherwise, somehow ruining a numbered page would create a hole in the sequence that then has to be numbered after the fact (and sent back for a signature?).

If I was doing it I would send the author xxx + 20 to sign, just so I was sure I would have enough usable pages, then do the numbering last. Which would mean the sequence of numbers may not be the sequence they were signed in.

But again, I don't know how they did it at BSP.
 
My copy is #313, but signed in a fine-point black pen as well (like the original poster's); but the sig is quite different. And the red-penned #313 is very uncharacteristic (very unlike the original poster's). But, this has been hashed out here; however, does it need to be re-visited? I feel good about the sig, but the numbering has always bothered me.

Seems to be a bit of uncertainty here. I'll try to scan and post it tomorrow or as soon as I can.
 

chronic

old and in the way
Well, not knowing exactly the logistics of their signing system, I would think Bukowski signed first, then they were numbered. Otherwise, somehow ruining a numbered page would create a hole in the sequence that then has to be numbered after the fact (and sent back for a signature?).

If I was doing it I would send the author xxx + 20 to sign, just so I was sure I would have enough usable pages, then do the numbering last. Which would mean the sequence of numbers may not be the sequence they were signed in.

I'm sure you're right that they sent him unnumbered pages to sign and numbered them after they were returned, but the numbering was likely done in sequence and probably in one (maybe two) sittings.

I've seen numbering like this in BSP books and don't really find it questionable at all. Quite possibly as the numbering went on and the hand doing it grew tired, a lot of the flourishes were dropped in the interest of just getting it done.

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that this is a legit signed and numbered issue.
 

mjp

Founding member
It would be difficult to fake a signed hardcover due to all the other tell-tale signs, so I'm inclined to agree that it's legit. But if it was me buying it I would want to see other BSP 9's written in that characteristically Euro-style before I felt confident about it. And again, the underlined signature is also uncharacteristic. But that's just me from a buyer's point of view. If I owned it I would be defending it as genuine! ;)
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Plus, if it is a forgery, it seems to be done with a quick hand and why add the line when no other examples have the line? Most forgers copy what they see and are slow to write. This looks fast, which is good for the authenticity. This is a tough one. In the end, we will probably say that it is real. It looks right, but a bit sloppy. Also, I'm not sure why a forger would, after going through all the work to find a wrong backstrip copy would add that line, when it is only one extra step that would not show up on any other examples. It just seems odd. Because of this, I tend to think that it is real. Seeing a number from another copy of DITT that is close in sequence or has that same 4 or 9 will cinch it as authentic, I think.

Bill
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
It may be legit, but the signature just doesn't feel like Buk to me, sober or hung over, and the underline is something I've never seen. I like Bill's theory that perhaps someone "improved" a copy that should have been signed but wasn't. I wouldn't buy it.
 
Nice find, Jordan.

Unfortunately, it seems that I am unable to obtain access to a scanner with a functioning platen scan option (sheet feed only - that's not going to happen!). My digital camera creates imiages that exceed the size requirements here, so I'm outta luck unless I can figure out how to change the settings on my camera to create smaller image files.
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Another way to resize photos is to open the file in Paint, resize the image and save it under a different file name. I do this to make my digital photos smaller and it's quick and easy.
 
Time to drdge up this old thread. Here's a not-called-for signed first trade ed of Hot Water Music with the line under the signature. I feel very confident in the signature, and Scott Harrison indicated that he got this from the Don Klein collection and vouched for its authenticity.

HWMusicsigned-rotated.jpg


Hopefully this file size is OK; it seems to be on my end.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top