[quote="Will Bozarth"]Very good. Now, the subject asks "what would you consider this?". Maybe you can copy/paste the definition of what you'd call it.[/quote]

Maybe instead of sarcasm you should check what you wrote.

[quote]what would you consider this?

[b]I guess my question is: Should I consider this an autograph even though he didn't sign his name?[/b][/quote]

Was no need to jump on chirscollector at all seeing as he answered your question (as did everyone else and you didnt jump on them)

It would simply be an unsigned letter. Without the signature it would be hard to tell who wrote it. You could send it out for verification but that would most likely prove to be too expensive.

[quote="Will Bozarth"]I'll repeat:

what would you consider this?[/quote]

Id consider what you received a reply to your question, not an autograph

^?????????? I REPEAT NOT AN AUTOGRAPH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's nothing more than someone handwriting, and unfortunately w/o their signature on it, it has no real proof of who it came from. It's a hand written note.

I'll repeat:

what would you consider this?

^???? What don't you get? An autograph is a signature!!!!!!!! Unless the persons name happens to be a word in one of his sentences you are S.O.L. If anyone would consider this an autograph I would only wish to see their "collection".

Very good. Now, the subject asks "what would you consider this?". Maybe you can copy/paste the definition of what you'd call it.

autograph [???t??gr??f -?græf]
n
1.
a. a handwritten signature, esp that of a famous person

I would not consider this an autograph success. That doesn't mean it's not a great success overall, because it is! {up}

Khackdrums :D

No signature = no autograph.

In my opinion of course. Its a handwritten piece but not an autograph.