09-03-2026, 06:27 PM
There is some variation in Tepenec's ex libris and other signatures, which is fine (people aren't computers). Here's an example I happen to have on hand. Someone on my grandfather's side of the family was an (obscure) artist, and I've been able to find some of his painting online over the years. Almost all signatures are somewhat different. He had a number of styles that switched sometimes. The descenders that form the "A" of "Antwerp" are used early (1900) but I also have one from 1937. Angular and round G are not consistent in any period, and extremes of both are found in the early period. And so on.
There was clearly no need to have a "legally consistent" artist's signature, and obviously the same was true for one's ex libris - these guys even had multiple versions of their names they could choose from. The signature in the VM fits well within Tepenec's style. Only when you have "forgery" on your mind, you will point out differences and call it fake. Just like one could easily point to any of my great-great-uncle's signatures and call that fake. But there is no reason to think that, unless you have a theory that something was forged.
As to what people should have said but didn't say: how are we to know the complex network of personal motivations at play? How are we to know the millions of words spoken but not written down for posterity? Arguments of "x should have said more about y" are uninteresting, because we have no way of knowing how much x said about y over a century ago. Or what x's motivations were to write about z instead of y.
The signature looks fine, and there is nothing wrong with the number. Of course, if you want everything to be forged, then the signature is forged. Easy to say, impossible to disprove. And I guess that makes the claim disputed. Just like the fact that the earth is round is, technically, disputed.
There was clearly no need to have a "legally consistent" artist's signature, and obviously the same was true for one's ex libris - these guys even had multiple versions of their names they could choose from. The signature in the VM fits well within Tepenec's style. Only when you have "forgery" on your mind, you will point out differences and call it fake. Just like one could easily point to any of my great-great-uncle's signatures and call that fake. But there is no reason to think that, unless you have a theory that something was forged.
As to what people should have said but didn't say: how are we to know the complex network of personal motivations at play? How are we to know the millions of words spoken but not written down for posterity? Arguments of "x should have said more about y" are uninteresting, because we have no way of knowing how much x said about y over a century ago. Or what x's motivations were to write about z instead of y.
The signature looks fine, and there is nothing wrong with the number. Of course, if you want everything to be forged, then the signature is forged. Easy to say, impossible to disprove. And I guess that makes the claim disputed. Just like the fact that the earth is round is, technically, disputed.