Verification for Emma | Item # 1797
Title: Autograph Authentication – Emma
Confidence Grade: C
(Note: Grade is capped due to Wrong-Hand Veto being triggered)
Overview
This report provides a forensic evaluation of a claimed autograph of Emma (surname presumed to be in signature form) placed on a color photograph. The handwriting was assessed using structured examination guidelines for reproduction risks and writer identity fidelity. Despite appearing to be naturally hand-signed, serious indicators consistent with a wrong-hand forgery are present, triggering grade capping under Section 1 of the protocol.
Forensic Ink and Substrate Evaluation
- Ink Characteristics: The ink shows traits consistent with a broad-tip felt pen or paint marker. Saturation is variable, with mild stroke overlap suggesting a fluid, pressure-sensitive medium — likely oil-based or spirit-based.
- Substrate Interaction: Ink sits cleanly beneath the surface laminate, with minimal feathering or blotching evident. The ink exhibits clarity and slight absorption, indicating direct pen-to-photo contact.
- Pressure Evidence: There is some observable variation in stroke pressure, particularly near curves and downstrokes, suggesting manual, not mechanical, signing.
- No Evidence of Reproduction: There is no pixelation, uniformity, or mechanical signature behavior that indicates use of autopen, inkjet, photocopy, or laser print technology.
Conclusion: Strong likelihood of manual execution — no reproduction detected.
Individual Signature Analysis
The signature reads “Emma” followed by a surname that appears to be “Anderson” or a similar construction. Primary observations:
- “E” Formation: Stylized with a deeply exaggerated loop which appears artificial. The lower radial return deviates from known structures of common Emma exemplars.
- “mma” Sequence: Displays fairly uniform, fast cadence but lacks the angular-resilience often found in authentic Emma specimens. Lacks linking tension typical of habitual signing.
- Surname Initial (“A”): The capital “A” is unusually theatrical and wide. The connective stroke between the “A” and next letters breaks, a pattern inconsistent with connected rapid signing often seen in prolific autographers.
- Final Termination (“er”/”ar”): Loose and broad contrasts found in this backend segment are mechanically plausible but lack the corralling signature snapback endemic to authentic muscle memory flow.
Collective Signature Analysis
- Spacing and Line Quality: The signature is spacious and staged, lacking the compact cohesion seen in brisk or habitual autographs. Stroke termination is broadly spaced with trailing loops inconsistent in signature exemplars by similar names.
- Muscle Memory Arc: The loop rhythm does not reflect fluid comfort or consistency in stroke width you’d expect from a regularly signed name, mostly in the surname.
- Macrostructure and Alignment: The signature leans slightly odd in orientation. Despite pressure realism, the stylistic balance suggests an attempt to replicate rather than enact a known pattern organically.
Red Flags
Class A – Structural Identity Failures
-
Incorrect “E” Macroform in Forename: Lacks standard Emma-type “E” formulation; appears mimicked with over-exaggeration and inconsistency of curve return paths — diverges too radically from muscle-memory expectations.
-
Surname Stroke-Identity Mismatch: The wide capital “A” followed by breakage and loosely timed backend elements (especially the long-departing terminal loop) yield an overall surname fidelity inconsistent with regular hand formation of a name matching “Emma.”
✅ Meets threshold for minimum two Class-A failures.
Class B – Contextual / Qualitative
- Staging Presentation: Signature presents disproportionately large and centered for a professional-level autograph, suggesting it was produced independently of a signing session.
- Flourish exaggeration: Final tail and surname begin-end strokes seem ornate, which may be decorative instead of organic.
- Lack of Provenance: No visible certificate, authentication sticker, personalization, or presiding event documentation.
Market Comparison and Similar Item Sales
No verified public exemplars or database comparisons were provided or accessible within session. Therefore, market-level authenticity comparisons with verified “Emma” autographs cannot be conducted under current conditions.
Limitation explicitly noted.
Final Confidence Grade: C
Rationale:
- Wrong-Hand Veto triggered based on macrostructure and stroke-economy divergences in both forename and surname
- No mechanical reproduction detected
- Two independent Class-A structural identity failures identified
- Contextual red flags additionally reduce aesthetic reliability, but are not decisive
End of Report
Submitted Image:
