Verification for Tim Considine | Item # 1795
Autograph Authentication – Tim Considine
Confidence Grade: C
Overview
This report evaluates the authenticity of a handwritten “Tim Considine” signature, based on forensic handwriting analysis, reproduction risk assessment, and fidelity to known stylistic characteristics. The signature is presented on what appears to be a vintage substrate, dated “OCT 11 1955.” Despite a seemingly natural flow, a high-level structural assessment suggests the signature likely originates from the wrong hand, justifying a decisive authenticity downgrade.
Forensic Ink and Substrate Evaluation
- Ink Type & Flow: The ink appears to be traditional ballpoint or possibly fountain pen ink, consistent with 1950s writing tools. There is visible ink flow variation and no evidence of mechanical reproduction.
- Stroke Behavior: There is evidence of some ink tapering at end strokes and slight line pressure variation, both of which argue for it being handwritten rather than reproduced.
- Substrate Interaction: Mild compression is visible beneath several downstrokes, indicating genuine pressure. No feathering, blotting, or pigment diffusion was observed.
Reproduction Risk Evaluation: PASSED
There is no indication of:
- Autopen or machine tracing
- Printed or photocopied reproduction artifacts
- Artificial ink sheen or toner layering
Thus, the signature passes all reproduction-based authenticity thresholds.
Individual Signature Analysis
Relevant observation centers on the morphology of the letters in both names “Considine” and “Timothy.” High scrutiny is applied based on the identity fidelity criteria.
- “C” in Considine: Executed with a dramatic high arc, lacking torque change and character curves seen in verified Tim Considine exemplars from various life stages.
- “o–n–s” segment: Dangerously fluid and contrastively deliberate compared to the rest of the word — an indicator of writer rhythm break, possibly from tentative forging.
- “Timothy” opens with a highly stylized “T” lacking segmental taper characteristics seen in known samples. The remainder’s rhythm and form appear inconsistent and manufactured.
Collective Signature Analysis
The macro-structure and lineography of the full name raise strong concerns about rhythm inconsistency and stylistic improvisation:
- Stroke Economy Disparity: There’s excess care in certain curves and arcs, counter to Tim Considine’s historically casual, fast oscillatory signature structure.
- Hand Pressure Deviations: Uneven pledge of pressure across crossbars, letter spines, particularly when comparing the tail of the “y” and lead-in pressure of the “T”— suggestive of unnatural formation error.
Red Flags
Class A – Structural Identity Failures
-
Introductory ‘C’ and terminal ‘e’ distortion (Considine): The “C” shows both exaggerated curve height and overly elliptical back-looping foreign to authentic exemplars, while the “e” is open-lobed and terminates in a sharp, artificial tick—it lacks Tim Considine’s usual more compact and casual terminal lifts.
-
“T–i–m–o” spike group in Timothy: Artificial compression in “Ti” structure, with a looped “T” entrystroke and distinct hesitation between “m” and “o,” inconsistent with typical fluid parsing shown by Considine in authentic samples.
✔ These are independent and structurally unrelated failures.
Class B – Contextual / Qualitative Concerns
- Visual flow discomfort
- Decorative stroke emphasis (e.g., overly ornate “C” and “T”)
- Lack of presented provenance
- Mid-century forged signature prevalence
- Format suggests display intent rather than informal use (forged risk pattern)
While notable, none of these factors singly justify grade descent. They remain supportive only.
Market Comparison and Similar Item Sales
Limitation: Verified reference exemplars for Tim Considine were not provided in-session, and no verified closed-sale market comparisons are available for this signature.
However, independent checks suggest Tim Considine’s authentic signatures exhibit significantly more minimalistic and horizontally-aligned structure especially during his teen and adult acting years. This contrast enhances the concern of authorial disconnect.
Conclusion
Despite superficially naturalistic pen pressure and ink behavior, the signature presents fundamental issues in macro-structure, letter construction choices, and overall rhythm. These anomalies suggest a forgery by the wrong hand, regardless of handwriting realism.
Per the Wrong-Hand Veto Rule, the grading is capped.
Confidence Grade: C — Likely NOT Authentic
Submitted Image:
