posted 05-20-2016 03:16 PM               

For starters, the "eil" is way off and the A is malformed. The Y formation looks like a bent open clothes hanger. Angles are all off.

While it is not so slow it's wobbly, the speed and pressure look off and there is no natural "bounce" or signs of flicking quickly from one part to the next.

posted 05-21-2016 11:41 AM               

When I said the "Y" I really meant the "G", at the end which has a "y" shape. The formation and angle are something I can easily see as being way off. However when you look at some of those early '70s signatures where he seemed fairly soft on the "G" you can almost convince yourself that it is possibly okay.

As far as the "eil" goes, looking closer the slant of the three together does look like is going in the wrong direction. Beyond that I can't tell.

The formation of the "A" well, damn I can't see anything obvious except maybe the "bulb" at the top isn't as shapely as it should be. Its almost too straight. But again, nothing that jumps out to me and screams "bogus."

The problem I have is that like you said, I go primarily by the shape, and by fluidity vs shakiness, at a high level. Armstrong had a lot of variation over the years in the shape that there are examples that come close.

The thing about this particular forgery to me is that that it doesn't seem to have overly harsh start and stops or shakiness that I've seen in others There is some speed and flare off at the end. But what you are picking up is, like I said, next level stuff. Quite amazing eye you have there Steve.