Jump to content
 
Ry-Bread

Blink-182 Signature Study

Recommended Posts

@daveyjones what would make you think that? I completely disagree, absolutely beautiful early examples - no doubt authentic IMO. 

Tons of traits that forgers would never be able to pull off that accurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ry-Bread said:

@daveyjones what would make you think that? I completely disagree, absolutely beautiful early examples - no doubt authentic IMO. 

Tons of traits that forgers would never be able to pull off that accurately.

given my own examples from that time, and others i have examined, my impression is that it's forged; absolutely.

1.) "may the force" is clearly not mark's handwriting. you can even compare it to a cargo cheshire cat poster where he wrote the same thing.

2.) the signatures are not consistent with other examples from the period; all three are equally bad attempts to copy each band member's style.

3.) tom began signing "tom blink" and mark began signing "mark 182" in the first half of 1996. neither of them ever signed first name + "blink-182." the entire point of the joke is that tom was "blink" and mark was "182." that's the most telling indicator of forgery on this uranus sleeve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@daveyjones respectfully disagree.

1. “May the force” absolutely looks like Mark’s handwriting IMO and compares quite nicely with the Cheshire one you are referencing - look at letter formation.

2. Lines up perfectly with that time period IMO (and my documented research)

3. Agreed Tom signing “Tom Blink-182” is odd, which is why I noted it was the first time I had ever seen that. Given how nicely this is signed, and the additional inscription from Mark, it is clear they had plenty of time on this and wanted to give this person a nice autograph. So Tom maybe just added that, and the date (more on that below).

-There are tons of positive traits, Mark signs pretty thick as is the case here, several signs of speed, correct spacing/slants/etc. So even from a technical standpoint, there’s no way a forger pulled off all 3 of these this accurately, at that speed IMO.

Though I preach to only judge by the autographs (and I’ve looked at Blink autographs every day for 5+ years and trust my gut) sometimes you have think about the other side of things:

-This piece was sold on eBay 7-8 years ago, before any Blink signature study was put together, and before any major documentation of their autographs was online. So even getting the correct time period to mimic correct would be tough.

-Why would a forger sign the inside of this vinyl cover? Forgers want money, sign this beautifully on the front so it’s nicely displayable.

-Why would a forger set themselves up for failure by trying to mimic additional inscriptions? Sign Mark/Tom/Scott and be done, you likely wouldn’t add “May The Force” and the extra Tom stuff. 

-I have scoured the Internet for years compiling exemplars of Blink autos and had NEVER seen Tom sign “‘96” like that until that poster that was posted the other day. The chance of a forger seeing that, and mimicking it perfectly (along with 2 other autos and inscription) are extremely slim.

-Why would a forger add “-182” on “Tom Blink” when we’ve basically never seen that happen. If someone was that amazing, they would’ve stuck to the norm IMO. (And at the same time if this is your “tell tale sign” of a forgery, it is MUCH more likely for Tom to have added that randomly, than for a forger to mistakingly add that while absolutely nailing every other aspect of 3 autographs and a Mark inscription IMO) 

-If these were forgeries, we would’ve seen way more from this artist on plenty of Cheshire/Dude Ranch albums over the years. No way this scam artist did the inside of one TCTCU vinyl this perfectly and called it quits! 

 

So while I love ya Davey, I respectfully disagree. Can try to provide some comparison screenshots next week. It’s just an absolutely amazing piece IMHO, and I would bet my entire collection that it’s authentic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright @daveyjones I have put together some comparisons, and it has actually confirmed what I already knew - these are no doubt authentic IMHO.

We can start with the "May The Force" inscription. In 6+ years of compiling exemplars, I only have two examples of this from back in the day. (He's done it some more recently, but uses all caps now). Here is a comparison of two, keep in mind these are both signed ~2 years before the 96 TCTCU vinyl we are discussing. However, this is absolutely Mark's handwriting IMO. I have tried to color coordinate specific areas to compare:

0c5tD6d.jpg

Next let's look at Mark's actual autograph. I have compared it with a couple other authentic examples signed in 1996 where he is still signing "Mark Hoppus". I do not have any examples of him adding "182" until 1997 (right column). So your point about "Tom is Blink" and "Mark is 182" is super interesting, but he has not added "182" yet, and thus Tom adding it on what is a super nice autograph doesn't shock me too much. There are various signs of speed on the TCTCU that forgers simply cannot get right. (Mark's "M" alone is incredibly hard to pull off).

q5rvycS.png

Next Tom, I have color coordinated several points of emphasis, ranging from identical characters, signs of speed, letter formation, slant, baseline, etc. This is stuff forgers would never get right, at that speed, while absolutely nailing Mark + Inscription, and Scott as well. The "'96" alone is a super weird "6" with what was previously an unknown inscription.

pUZpnA7.png

Lastly, Scott. Once again I have color coordinated some points of emphasis. These are all absolutely same hand IMO. I did notice something interesting while putting this together though, through 1996 Scott would sign "Raynor" underneath "Scott". But starting in 1997, he signed "Raynor" to the right" (As seen in the 1997 DR poster and beyond). Again, another extremely small detail that a master forger would have to do extremely serious research on, while combining multiple examples, all before I had even put this stuff together.

fwAhr6U.png


So again, even to pull off the technical aspect of these autographs and inscriptions perfectly would be insane. Combine that with the research/knowledge needed, and signing the inside of a random vinyl, it's just not plausible IMHO. All I ever go by is the autographs though, and these are absolutely amazing no doubt authentic 1996 Blink autographs IMHO.

  • Like 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ry-Bread said:

So again, even to pull off the technical aspect of these autographs and inscriptions perfectly would be insane.

in your initial post, you said "and just when I think that is as nice and OG as it gets, I find this." where did you find the image, and who owns the 7"? it would be great to see some larger photographs of the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, daveyjones said:

in your initial post, you said "and just when I think that is as nice and OG as it gets, I find this." where did you find the image, and who owns the 7"? it would be great to see some larger photographs of the whole thing.

Found it while digging on Worthpoint (site to view old eBay sales). Was sold back in 2013 I believe, not sure who owns it, but it sold for ~$250 and I'm very jealous of the owner! Agreed I wish there were better hi-res photos to view, but I don't need any more proof at all. I look at this stuff every day (and not just Blink, I study mostly baseball autographs and have been documenting/studying/collecting/helping people with this stuff for over 10 years) and can usually tell in about 2 seconds how I feel on a particular piece for subjects I know like the back of my hand. As soon as I saw this, I knew it was absolutely authentic IMO and while putting together the screenshots for you it did nothing but reaffirm my position, to a degree that I would say it would be nearly impossible to mimic all 3 of those signatures that perfectly.

Keep in mind that the quality of Blink forgeries are usually quite bad, and particularly ones trying to mimic back in the day. I've only seen a handful of Blink forgeries that I would consider halfway convincing, 95% are pathetic attempts that are instantly identifiable to anyone halfway familiar with their autographs. Here are some examples of forgeries next to the TCTCU vinyl being discussed:

v00bZkV.jpg

Like I said, most people can't even get Mark's "M" right. There are several traits I didn't even point out in the previous comparisons, as I do not like to document this stuff if forgers are "listening". I even went back to other handwriting examples I have of Mark and confirmed letter formation on several characters. I don't know what level of knowledge you have on general handwriting characteristics, signs of speed, etc. but this is case-closed no doubt authentic for me, and I would love to have this in my collection.

If your main "tell-tale sign of forgery" is Tom simply adding "-182" I think that would be silly to discount piles of positives for an oddball negative - particularly when Mark did not even add "182" here, and according to my dated exemplars - hadn't yet until 1997. Tom was signing "Tom Blink" for *some* amount of time before Mark went to "Mark 182" (Mark was still signing "Mark Hoppus" in Australia through at least ~May of 1996), so I don't think it's too far stretched for Tom to add "-182" on what is an extremely nice set of autographs, which were likely for a friend or someone special. Perhaps shortly after this in 1996 Mark said "Hey I'll add 182 to mine" and the rest is history, but he was definitely signing "Mark Hoppus" in 1996 when Tom was already signing "Tom Blink" so it wasn't a "Hey you sign Tom Blink I'll sign Mark 182" flick of a switch that they both started on Jan 1, 1996 and never broke the truce. 

Hopefully more examples from this time period see the light of day over time, this is the stuff that fascinates me!
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ry-Bread said:

so it wasn't a "Hey you sign Tom Blink I'll sign Mark 182" flick of a switch that they both started on Jan 1, 1996 and never broke the truce. 

oh for sure. i saw mark signing both "hoppus" and "182" in the spring of '96. my perspective on all this stuff is based on my first-hand memories of that era, so when i saw the "'96" and the "tom blink-182" my hair stood up because that SO does not comport with all of my memories of the time. the pen use also struck me as weird, as if not signed by the same pen at the same time. mark is middleweight, tom is super thin, scott back to being thicker.

i don't devote a ton of time looking at this stuff, and i certainly have no dog in the fight (not desiring to either prove or disprove this particular 7" signing as authentic). but my instinct was very much in the negative column. nice of you to track down the comparative shots for this thread; i hope it helps other collectors make their own determinations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, daveyjones said:

 the pen use also struck me as weird, as if not signed by the same pen at the same time. mark is middleweight, tom is super thin, scott back to being thicker.

This is actually a major positive for me, Mark often signs thicker with a heavier hand. Here are some more examples of this, this is yet another trait that I would never expect a forger to pick up on, and nail accurately:

1W3wohK.png

ucOe9DV.jpg

JgS23Bz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@rexman182 yup, and I am not going to call too much attention to it, as it is clear that this bum has paid attention to my study and does his homework. All I will say is DO NOT BUY from eBay seller hulahoopsolo

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...