How To Make A Written Signature

[MOVIESTAR]

Hi Ladies and a Gents, hope your all well. I was hoping you could give my some advise on how to make a good signature. Ive tried but i cant get it right.

 

Thanks

 

Take care

 

MOVIESTAR

[Yuki Onitsura]

Good question. I'm also curious if there are any rules/tricks to making a nice signature.

 

Yuki

[hardyb]

http://www.wikihow.com/Create-a-Personalized-Signature

 

http://www.mylivesignature.com/

[MOVIESTAR]

http://www.wikihow.com/Create-a-Personalized-Signature

 

http://www.mylivesignature.com/

 

 

thanks

[nolagraph]

A little unrelated, but I noticed this on the first reference link that was posted:

 

Another requirement for a signature to be legally valid, is that it must be signed in either black our blue ink ONLY!

 

I had never heard of this before. Knowing the proliferation of inks that members of FPN use in daily life, I wonder if anyone has run into a situation where this "rule" had been enforced upon them. I generally use either blue or black ink when signing my name but didn't think it made a legal difference.

[Beardy]

Legal where? That seems like one of those over-generalizations that incline me to distrust the information.

[jgrasty]

The only time I've had to sign documents with other than black ink was in front of a notary public or on mortgage documents. It is unclear to me if this was a legal requirement or just a demand of the title company.

[ZeissIkon]

The only time I've had to sign documents with other than black ink was in front of a notary public or on mortgage documents. It is unclear to me if this was a legal requirement or just a demand of the title company.

 

The only time some other color will be preferred over black is in order to instantly distinguish the signed original from copies. Black ink is hard to distinguish from a copy (possible, since copier toner is slightly raised from the paper, but the examination to verify this takes time), but blue or other dark color isn't. Since other colors can cause other issues with copying, microfilm recording, and legibility, blue or blue-black are the preferred alternates to black for many legal documents when color is used to distinguish the original.

 

Whether any of this is actually a requirement of law will depend on the location and may also depend on the circumstances; I've very seldom, if ever, heard of a bank rejecting a check (far the most common "legal document" in use, even in this age of electronic payment) because it was signed with green, purple, brown, or red (though red might not show well on some old style microfilms, modern electronic check imaging is panchromatic). Marriage certificates, court documents, and the like, however, might be subject to legal signature requirements (and those requirements will vary from state to state and country to country). Much more frequently, you'll be told it's a requirement when in fact no one can actually cite a state (or local) code that does require it -- some notary, city employee, or court recorder who isn't a lawyer practicing CYA.

 

Simple solution is to be prepared: bring three pens, one with Bulletproof Black or carbon ink, one with a reliable, waterproof (ideally iron-gall based) blue-black, and one with a dark permanent blue.

 

All of which has little to nothing to do with learning to write a signature...

 

My own signature is a scribble that I challenge anyone who isn't a professional forger to replicate; unfortunately, I fairly frequently have to "sign" something with an altered signature because (for instance) they require the endorsement to match the name on a check, or the signature to match the name on my driver's license (which, in accordance with state law, is my full first, middle, and last name -- a combination that has never been and never will be comfortable for me to use as a signature). I live with it; I've signed the same way for thirty-some years and don't see changing it without a longish period during which I'm completely uncomfortable with both old and new (and can't predict, if I'm not concentrating, which will come out of the pen).

[ismellarat]

Generally, signatures are a joined writing of your name. Mine happens to be a sort of scribble thingy-ma-bob that I have been using since 3rd grade when our teacher required us to write a signature in pure cursive, as you might be able to tell, I have a problem with people telling me how I "have" to do things.

[leprechaun]

The only time I've had to sign documents with other than black ink was in front of a notary public or on mortgage documents. It is unclear to me if this was a legal requirement or just a demand of the title company.

The forms required to enter Germany from the US required either blue or black ink as of last November.

[strunkl]

In the United States, there is nothing about the color of ink that makes a signature "legal." If you present a signed contract to a court for enforcement, for example, no one involved will note whether the document was signed with Private Reserve Lake Placid Blue, Aurora Black, or Diamine Saddle Brown.

 

It is true that some forms (from any source, not just the government) demand blue or black ink, but (as an earlier post noted) that has nothing to do with the law -- it probably has more to do with the fact that blue and black both photocopy reliably, whereas other colors are less predictable.

[Paddler]

A good signature, in my view, is one that is legible, one that you can write the same way every time, and one that is unique. I use the cursive hand that I learned in grade school. You can actually read my name (if you can read cursive); I don't have to think about how to write it; and anything I can write by hand will have a discernible "character".

 

I don't like to see signatures that I can't read. Most people seem to cultivate a "personalized" signature that is an illegible scrawl. To know who actually signed his name, you have to ask him to print his name under his signature. Who needs the extra printing practice? Just do it right the first time. I was in a bank once, and the teller looked at my deposit slip and said, "Wow. I can actually read your name on this slip! It's pretty." So the bank staff actually got to know me by name and could recognize my signature. Forgery? I don't worry about it. Textbook cursive is becoming more illegible with every graduating school class.

 

Paddler

[Sandy1]

In the United States, there is nothing about the color of ink that makes a signature "legal." If you present a signed contract to a court for enforcement, for example, no one involved will note whether the document was signed with Private Reserve Lake Placid Blue, Aurora Black, or Diamine Saddle Brown.

 

It is true that some forms (from any source, not just the government) demand blue or black ink, but (as an earlier post noted) that has nothing to do with the law -- it probably has more to do with the fact that blue and black both photocopy reliably, whereas other colors are less predictable.

Hello,

I believe that one's signature should be reproduce-able (photocopy, scanning, microform). I use a dark Blue-Black ink, so if I'm shown a document with my signature in black, I know it's a copy.

Best Regards, Sandy

[tres]

In some transactions specifically dealing with real estate development, some banks and syndicators require signatures to be in blue ink. They do this to help ensure that they are receiving all original signatures, not copies. This is a requirement from the institutions as opposed to a legal requirement.

[Michael W]

A little unrelated, but I noticed this on the first reference link that was posted:

 

Another requirement for a signature to be legally valid, is that it must be signed in either black our blue ink ONLY!

 

I had never heard of this before. Knowing the proliferation of inks that members of FPN use in daily life, I wonder if anyone has run into a situation where this "rule" had been enforced upon them. I generally use either blue or black ink when signing my name but didn't think it made a legal difference.

 

I have to write my documents in blue at work, so that they can easily be recognized as originals, rather than a photocopy, which would appear black regardless of the original ink colour.

[Brerarnold]

In the hospitals where I've worked, blue, black, or blue-black is required because they copy well, and hospitals send out lots of copies of records. I have also been in situations where they asked for blue so that it was clearly the original signature and not a copy, but that has been rare. (Although, come to think of it, the last contract I signed was a month ago and they requested blue ink.) Since I favor blue-black for everyday use, it's not a problem either way. Blue enough for the "original signature" deal, dark enough to copy well.

 

BTW, someone said he signed with a scribble and defied anyone to copy it. I have heard from many sources that a scribble is easier to forge than a legible signature. A legible signature has more points that can be used to demonstrate that it was forged; scribbles don't. This is the theory. I am not a handwriting analyst but it makes sense to me. I prefer a legible signature, and assume that scribblers are just lazy. Like it or lump it, that is my opinion/bias and I don't foresee changing it. (Even in today's more tolerant society, you still get to have some prejudices, right? Like "I root for Carolina and anyone who beats Duke." )

[MOVIESTAR]

Thanks everyone

[sirgrunthos]

A good signature, in my view, is one that is legible, one that you can write the same way every time, and one that is unique. I use the cursive hand that I learned in grade school. You can actually read my name (if you can read cursive); I don't have to think about how to write it; and anything I can write by hand will have a discernible "character".

 

I don't like to see signatures that I can't read. Most people seem to cultivate a "personalized" signature that is an illegible scrawl. To know who actually signed his name, you have to ask him to print his name under his signature. Who needs the extra printing practice? Just do it right the first time. I was in a bank once, and the teller looked at my deposit slip and said, "Wow. I can actually read your name on this slip! It's pretty." So the bank staff actually got to know me by name and could recognize my signature. Forgery? I don't worry about it. Textbook cursive is becoming more illegible with every graduating school class.

 

Paddler

 

I'm going to apologize right off the bat if this doesn't format right. I've been a long time away from FPN, in fact just about gave up on FP's altogether until I finally found what I'd been looking for. Anyway, I digress . . . I can't help but contribute to this thread and agree with Paddler. I have read and been told by leaders of business that one of the most useless characteristics in written correspondence today is an illegible signature. Although certainly not a recent example, but stellar nonetheless, Malcolm Forbes would flat out reject a letter if he couldn't make out the signature. Yes, penmanship is dying, but we needn't place banana peels next to the grave with our casual attitudes regarding something so important.

 

Sir Grunthos

[ZeissIkon]

Well, it seems there's a strong majority opinion that my signature ought to be readable as my name (at least full first and last, though there's a growing trend to require use of full middle name as well, at least on official documents). So, how would one go about changing one's "legal" signature after finding a comfortable and legible new way to actually sign? After all, so many places have my signature on file the way I've signed for about the past thirty years, from my bank to my landlord and employer, to the Federal government -- very legible first initial, with a sort of scrawl, then a very legible last initial and another, slightly more legible scrawl. I'd be concerned, if I change my signature, that there could be a legal disconnect -- even to the point of being accused of stealing my own identity! -- from my whole previous adult life, and I'm not really prepared to spend several months tracking down everywhere that might have my signature on file for comparison and jumping through whatever hoops they might hold out to verify that I'm still me.

[sirgrunthos]

Well, it seems there's a strong majority opinion that my signature ought to be readable as my name (at least full first and last, though there's a growing trend to require use of full middle name as well, at least on official documents). So, how would one go about changing one's "legal" signature after finding a comfortable and legible new way to actually sign? After all, so many places have my signature on file the way I've signed for about the past thirty years, from my bank to my landlord and employer, to the Federal government -- very legible first initial, with a sort of scrawl, then a very legible last initial and another, slightly more legible scrawl. I'd be concerned, if I change my signature, that there could be a legal disconnect -- even to the point of being accused of stealing my own identity! -- from my whole previous adult life, and I'm not really prepared to spend several months tracking down everywhere that might have my signature on file for comparison and jumping through whatever hoops they might hold out to verify that I'm still me.

Good points that anyone contemplating such a move should consider, now more than ever. One not-so-cheap method might be to sign up with an identity protection agency, there are several now, and they could probably ferret out most of the places where your signature appears. They might even have some recommendations regarding your last questions. As for doing it on the cheap, I do know there's this book: http://handwritinguniversity.com/products/signature/. Maybe it holds some answers, but I remain skeptical about its neutrality regarding form vs. function.