Koufax Secretarial??

[sb1]

Pulled this out of a recent card show purchase of 1950's/60's raw cards from an old time collection which had a few dozen signed. This Koufax was among them. Had JSA take a look and they proclaimed "secretarial" and probably obtained TTM given the provenance of the collection. My only reasoning as to why it might be real is that many of the cards were multi player cards signed by each of those on the card. This Koufax certainly looks like Koufax intentionally signed it across his image to leave space for Podres to then sign. One would think a fake or even secretarial single signed card would have had the auto more visible, than hidden across the jersey.

Board thoughts??

And if secretarial, the value?

[RICHIEHARRIS]

I would ask Net54 member rlevy (Rick Levy), who I consider to be one of the resident Koufax experts, his opinion.
Rick has amassed an incredible collection of Koufax memorabilia over the years and can probably offer an accurate look at the authenticity of the autograph on your card.
Hoping it turns out to be authentic.

[rand1com]

I am not a Koufax expert but most of his TTM autographs were secretarial although good looking ones. I think this one is indeed secretarial and if so the value is minimal. The card would be worth more without a secretarial signature.

[robw1959]

I don't like the "S" very much. Here is a real example . . .

[theshleps]

The y and the K would make it period signed if it was real. He stopped the loop in the K pretty early

[rlevy]

The style of the signature resembles the way he was signing around 1965, but I do believe it is secretarial. The letters may have a similar style, but the slant is almost never quite correct with the secretarial versions as well as with the forgeries, and some letters are difficult to get the flow correct for them as well. There can always be exceptions, but I don't think this authentic.

Rick