SetBuilder
01-29-2019, 11:13 AM
Whoever purchased this framed cut made a bad decision.
eBay link: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Benjamin-Franklin-Signature-Framed-with-LOA-and-COA-Ben-autograph-/333004610273?hash=item4d889f1ae1%3Ag%3A928AAOSwb-RbyiHb&nma=true&si=%252BPjj3R3CWkgk5sX1vDuBV9e2zbw%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
There are several things wrong with this "autograph."
First, take a look at the medium. It's on a late 18th, early 19th century contract. It's the typical period contract that begins with "Know All Men By These Presents...". You can find these contracts of unknown people at any antique auction house for $100 or less. I've seen hundreds on eBay.
Now take a look at the placement of the signature. It's on a location of the contract that people didn't sign. It's awkwardly placed on top of the typeset text that has the year, location, details, etc., and directly on top of the filled in date. Why would Franklin sign a contract there? The place for the parties to sign was way down at the bottom right side of the sheet.
This is exactly the kind of medium an opportunistic forger would put to use. Take a low value contract signed by unknown people, and put a signature near the text so that it looks "official." The only reason it wasn't signed anywhere else is because all the spaces reserved for signatures already had signatures and the Franklin couldn't be squeezed between them. That would be too awkward. Besides, the "official" looking text would be great for luring in an amateur buyer who thinks it's a government form or something similar.
Second red flag is the COA. These people are claiming to be big time forensic experts. Like something out of CSI. Not knowing basic historical details would be super embarrassing, right? It would surely raise red flags and cast doubt on the entire authentication and "opinion."
Let's start with the first paragraph at the top (red boxes were drawn by me).
"The examined signature was written with a drip pen."
What the hell is a "drip pen?" You mean a dip pen. Pens before fountain pens had to be dipped in an ink well. Basic stuff.
Then they serve up a load of total bullsh*t about how the ink would get lighter by the end. A skilled writer like Franklin could probably write several sentences before the ink would start to run out. I doubt it would be all spent by the end of his signature.
"Medium: Wood Pulp Paper"
Not just wood pulp, but "coarse" wood pulp paper. Wrong. They just made this up. Paper back then didn't have wood pulp because that kind of paper didn't come into use until the late 19th century. Wood pulp paper is the kind of stuff newspapers are printed on. It was the worst quality paper that existed back then.
A contract like this would have been made from high quality cotton or linen rag pulp in a place like England. It is "coarse" (not the best choice of adjective. More like grain or tooth.) not just because it was made by hand, but because it was laid paper. Laid, as in those little horizontal lines running parallel across the sheet. That was the kind of paper style that was preferred during Franklin's lifetime. "Coarse wood pulp paper" is a laughably inaccurate description.
"Ink Type: Steel Tipped Pen."
Ben Franklin died in 1790, and steel nibs hadn't hit the market yet in the United States; not until the beginning of the 19th century. Franklin would have used a quill pen. Made from feathers. Again, basic stuff.
Finally, the ink looks off. It's slow and muddy, and looks different than the ink used for the date. That's because the original ink is oxidized from legitimate age and the one used for the "Franklin" is not. It was put on recently, probably with the wrong type of pen. I doubt it's even iron gall ink. I have a hard time believing that the people behind this creation would have taken the time and effort to mix their own period ink. Yeah. Right.
What a waste of $5,000.
eBay link: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Benjamin-Franklin-Signature-Framed-with-LOA-and-COA-Ben-autograph-/333004610273?hash=item4d889f1ae1%3Ag%3A928AAOSwb-RbyiHb&nma=true&si=%252BPjj3R3CWkgk5sX1vDuBV9e2zbw%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
There are several things wrong with this "autograph."
First, take a look at the medium. It's on a late 18th, early 19th century contract. It's the typical period contract that begins with "Know All Men By These Presents...". You can find these contracts of unknown people at any antique auction house for $100 or less. I've seen hundreds on eBay.
Now take a look at the placement of the signature. It's on a location of the contract that people didn't sign. It's awkwardly placed on top of the typeset text that has the year, location, details, etc., and directly on top of the filled in date. Why would Franklin sign a contract there? The place for the parties to sign was way down at the bottom right side of the sheet.
This is exactly the kind of medium an opportunistic forger would put to use. Take a low value contract signed by unknown people, and put a signature near the text so that it looks "official." The only reason it wasn't signed anywhere else is because all the spaces reserved for signatures already had signatures and the Franklin couldn't be squeezed between them. That would be too awkward. Besides, the "official" looking text would be great for luring in an amateur buyer who thinks it's a government form or something similar.
Second red flag is the COA. These people are claiming to be big time forensic experts. Like something out of CSI. Not knowing basic historical details would be super embarrassing, right? It would surely raise red flags and cast doubt on the entire authentication and "opinion."
Let's start with the first paragraph at the top (red boxes were drawn by me).
"The examined signature was written with a drip pen."
What the hell is a "drip pen?" You mean a dip pen. Pens before fountain pens had to be dipped in an ink well. Basic stuff.
Then they serve up a load of total bullsh*t about how the ink would get lighter by the end. A skilled writer like Franklin could probably write several sentences before the ink would start to run out. I doubt it would be all spent by the end of his signature.
"Medium: Wood Pulp Paper"
Not just wood pulp, but "coarse" wood pulp paper. Wrong. They just made this up. Paper back then didn't have wood pulp because that kind of paper didn't come into use until the late 19th century. Wood pulp paper is the kind of stuff newspapers are printed on. It was the worst quality paper that existed back then.
A contract like this would have been made from high quality cotton or linen rag pulp in a place like England. It is "coarse" (not the best choice of adjective. More like grain or tooth.) not just because it was made by hand, but because it was laid paper. Laid, as in those little horizontal lines running parallel across the sheet. That was the kind of paper style that was preferred during Franklin's lifetime. "Coarse wood pulp paper" is a laughably inaccurate description.
"Ink Type: Steel Tipped Pen."
Ben Franklin died in 1790, and steel nibs hadn't hit the market yet in the United States; not until the beginning of the 19th century. Franklin would have used a quill pen. Made from feathers. Again, basic stuff.
Finally, the ink looks off. It's slow and muddy, and looks different than the ink used for the date. That's because the original ink is oxidized from legitimate age and the one used for the "Franklin" is not. It was put on recently, probably with the wrong type of pen. I doubt it's even iron gall ink. I have a hard time believing that the people behind this creation would have taken the time and effort to mix their own period ink. Yeah. Right.
What a waste of $5,000.