Just picked up this John Hancock

[w7imel]

Originally Posted by thenavarro

Nice piece. I showed one of these in 2015 and a few here thought that mine was not in the hand of Hancock but rather the person listed at the bottom. When comparing to yours, I think it's fairly obvious that yours and mine were done by the same person (see the descriptions of the pott ash, of the shipper, of Harrison Barnard, and the date at the bottom particularly the 17). So unless Jon Freeman, the master on yours, and James Scott, the master on mine, (who the consensus said filled out the whole document on mine) was the same peep , I think we did ok.

I did end up having mine slabbed too by Beckett/JSA, looks pretty nice in the slab. I don't have it at this house so I can't take a pic but if I find any on my phone I'll post it so you can see what it looks like in the slab.

Mike

Mike did you go back and re-read the posts? I was all over the post. It was that post that made me want to get one of these. Yes I want to see it for sure. Do you display it or keep it tucked away?

[thenavarro]

Michael, I don't currently have it on display, but I do display it occasionally. I have limited room so I tend to rotate pieces for display. My wife doesn't mind me having one room dedicated to autographs so I don't push my luck with overflow lol.

I'm not adverse to displaying "old" pieces. I bought them for myself, not to preserve for someone I don't know 200 years from now. I do have blackout curtains in the room though to keep out the sunlight.

Heck, I currently have on display a signed document from 1492 signed by Ferdinand and Isabella slabbed up, and it works itself through the rotation just like the rest of my stuff and none of them look worse for wear.

I'll try to run by my bank safe deposit box within a week and get the Hancock out and take some pics for you to show you what it looks like in a slab.

Yep, I remembered you defending my piece in that old thread from 2015, thank you, that's why I posted in yours.

It was pointless for me to try to defend mine back then as individuals already had their mind made up, and I didn't feel compelled to respond as I really didn't have the time to play on the boards much between law school at night and work during the day. Arguing with people was not the way I wanted to spend my few minutes I had to browse and look so I just let it be.

Enjoy your piece, I'll post some pics within a week provided I have the chance to run by there. I have a slew of cases on the court docket for March 18 so I MIGHT not get a chance to run by until after that, but I will try

Mike

[thenavarro]

Here's a poor quality pic I had saved on my hard drive.

[w7imel]

Pretty awesome looking!! I took mine today to a well respected historical document framer in Indy. I decided on a simple 1 1/4" inch mat border with a nice looking blueish gray frame. He had examples of some museum glass that is 99% UV blocking but he said it was 3 times the price of other UV glass. He had a sample box of sorts set up and the museum glass was virtually impossible too see..At first I had to touch it to even tell if there was glass there it was pretty cool. The price difference for a piece this size IMO was worth is..The Regular 99% UV would have been 10 bucks and the museum stuff was 35. I opted for the museum grade. whole project should be done in 3 weeks he said.

[thenavarro]

Cool. Post a pic when done.

[w7imel]

I will for sure. Hey here is just a quick one paragraph note John sent out 3 July 1776. Signatures look pretty spot on I would say. Oh by the way its only going for 55K

https://www.raabcollection.com/ameri...ck-july-3-1776

[w7imel]

Picture of the museum glass 99% UV display as opposed to regular 99 percent UV. Picture not best but you see my point.