It's a Fleming signature, but is it real? Pt 3

If you thought verifying an Ian Fleming signature was already difficult, try doing it when you think it's one you've seen before (but isn't) - and then the doubt really kicks in!

If you add up all the first edition, first impression print runs of all 14 James Bond books, you’ll find yourself with a number of just over 430,000.

Include reprints into the mix, and it’s likely there were approaching half a million Cape hardback James Bond books printed – an impressive amount by any standards. It's why it’s also an impossible number of books for collectors to even attempt to keep tabs on, to determine survival rates, or to work out whether fresh-to-market or the same books keep re-appearing for sale.

It's only certain books – like the limited edition signed set of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – where it’s very easy to see when these books repeatedly come to the market. They are numbered, and therefore unique, and I’ve previously blogged about a side project I have to record as many of them surviving today as I can.

But when you scan the market as regularly as I do, every once and a while, you find yourself coming across one of those in-between books – one that’s not one of the homogeneous mass, but one that’s not a limited edition signed one either. It has enough identifiers to – let’s call it ‘ring a bell’ – and convince you that you might have seen it fairly recently before.

This happened to me this past week – when I noticed this particular edition of For Your Eyes Only come up (below).

It was being offered up for auction this past Friday (13th Feb 2026), and as you can see, it’s probably not the jacket that gives it away, but what’s written inside – a signature purporting to be that of Ian Fleming (see below):

I thought I'd seen this before...

Apart from my first instinct being to work out whether the signature was genuine or not, pretty much the first thing that went through my head when I saw this signature, was that I’d seen it somewhere before, and pretty recently (within the last year or so), but I just couldn't quite place it.

My instinct was that this was a book that I’d seen quite recently, and was now one of those books that go quickly back up again for sale. But while this shouldn't really be a surprise (Harrington’s for one is on record saying they’ve sold the same copy of Casino Royale at least four times before), something about it nagged at me.

I needed to satisfy my own curiosity and check whether I could find a trace of this book’s previous sales history. For while there are probably more signed Fleming books than people probably expect, they’re still unusual enough to warrant further investigation, and I wanted to know if the book was new to the market or not.

What I found out however, probably only deepens the mystery!

I was absolutely correct thinking I’d seen a very large signature, un-attributed, on the end paper of a For Your Eyes Only.

But when I searched, I found it was this For Your Eyes Only, up for auction in March last year:

It was this oversized Ian Fleming signature, starting almost in the stitching to the left of the right fep that must have stuck in my mind, because the book for sale this week shared the same attributes.

At first glance the book for sale this week chimed with my memory of the one I’d fleetingly seen and registered in my mind a year ago.

The only trouble is, if you look closely, it's not the same as the book that was up for auction on Friday.

Initially I thought the book for sale this week had been swapped into a slightly worse jacket, but then I realised that the signatures were completely different.

Here they are exactly lined up above and below each other. The top signature comes from the the one from last year; and below it is his week's book:

You could spend ages pointing to the differences between these signatures. Whilst broadly the same, some clear differences are:

• The lack of gap between the 'I' and the 'A' of 'Ian' on the second signature compared to the first

• The completely different F and L combinations on 'Fleming' - one linking the letters, the other not, and the top 'F' presented with much more of a flourish

• The undefined 'g' of Fleming on the second signature

• The dot of the 'i' in Fleming in markedly different places

• An extra 'dash' after the 'g' of Fleming in the top signature that the bottom one doesn't have

That said though, there's also plenty that go in their favour: the underline and two dots broadly the same; the 'style' is similar - in the way letters are shown, and fluidly written. The 'm' and 'in' of Fleming often look like 'w's, and both show this tendency.

I'm not saying these are fake (see my thoughts later), but two signatures, in separate books of the same title, without inscription, in similar over-sized fashion is a bit of a coincidence (maybe)?

If I'm being honest, I was much happier thinking this week’s book was the same as the one being auctioned last year, but now I'm troubled.

Could it be that someone's seen the book from last year, and simply tried to copy it in a different For Your Eyes Only?

That's a thought we now have to consider.

It's a shame this suspicion is even aroused. When presented on their own, these books look the part. But on sale in relatively quick succession; showing signatures not commonly done by Fleming in the first place? It might be a coincidence, or it might not.

And this is the problem with trying to vouch, with any sort of certainty, books that aren't association or inscribed copies, or part of the signed 250 limited edition set. When you're going on gut feel, seeing one that's similar, but not the same, is one of those examples of where your normally sound judgement is de-stablised by the newer book to the market.

Fickleness!

There's another reason the original (last-year's) book stuck in my mind. I actually blogged about it back then; and now I remember why.

It was a 4th impression - from 1964 - which was published in March of that year - very close to when Fleming died in August of the same year. It didn't get a single auction bid, and at the time, I wondered if this late impression date spooked people. I was on the fence about whether this was grounds to dismiss the signature, but compared to the signature in the book up for auction this week, I would actually go so far as saying the 4th impression signature is now the 'better' of the two'

It just goes to show fickle and influenced our decision-making can be - especially when a book is revisited some time later, or compared with another that appears less-good!

So what's my assessment?

If I were a betting man, I'd probably now argue that the 4th impression signature (ie the one for sale a year ago, and had me questioning it), is actually the better candidate for being genuine (even though bidders dismissed it last year).

But had I not recalled the other book from last year, and had nothing to compare this week's one to, would I have said this week's book's signature was good?

Again, it demonstrates the problem that vouching for a book is hard, and your opinion can change about the same book.

It's probably worth mentioning at this point, that I don't think the auction house attempting to sell it was 100% sure either. It marketed the book with just a single photo - the picture of the book with its jacket on. It strikes me as strange they wouldn't be showing the signature itself - this book's presumed main selling point.

In fact, the only way I've been able to show you an image of the signature itself from this week's book has been by asking the auction house to send me one direct. It does not appear on the official listing at all. The book is simply accompanied with the following final sentence: "We do not have provenance." (ie make your own mind up!)

So, is this week's Fleming signature genuine?

Here's the signature again (above left), next to one of the most famous (and well-documented scrawls) Fleming signatures there is.

Comparing the two, the 'Ian' component of both signatures look good. But the 'Fleming' parts just don't compare well side-by-side. Once again, it's the straight line through the 'F' of Fleming on the For Your Eyes Only one, with the non-joining-up to the 'L' after it that doesn't work for me.

In a previous blog comparing signatures from books we know are genuine - the 250 signed set - I note how the signatures can look wildly different, even in this numbered signed edition set.

But one of the few constants that re-analysis of the OHMSS books shows, is that they all - bar none - have the same flourished strike-through of the 'F' that seamlessly joins with the 'L'. Have a look at my previous blog for yourself - it's quite evident once you notice it.

See these other well-known and vouched-for examples below:

Yes, the gap between the 'I' and 'A' of Ian varies, and there are differences in the way the 'g' of Fleming is written. One is also more compressed than the other. But the one element common to both is the all important 'correct' F-L combination.

So, is the more recent For Your Eyes Only signature a fake?

I passed an image of this week's For Your Eyes Only signature to Fleming bibliographer Jon Gilbert. If he says a signature is good, it pretty much is. Jon told me he'd previously tried to get an image of the signature himself, but he said the auction house didn't want to send him one!! Not a great confidence booster. In his opinion, he said he would steer clear of it.

And yet...!!!

I'm going to end with something that demonstrates the wildly frustrating thing with signatures.

Just when you think you've found a rule, up pops something which potentially breaks it.

Have a look at this signature (below), on Casino Royale - showing an non-joined-up line through the 'F', and not joined up to the 'L'. (ie what I'm suggesting makes the signature questionable).

The autograph below reportedly has impeccable provenance: it came from the estate of Stanley Meyer - whom Fleming was hoping to sell a film deal to. The book was given to him by Fleming as a gift:

Does this more closely resemble the For Your Eyes Only up for auction this week?

I think it does. Not categorically, but the resemblance is there.

PS The book this week 'did' sell - but it didn't exactly attract a bidding frenzy.

It got just the single opening bid.

In my mind, I think it's likely someone's paid a lot of money for a signed book that hasn't got the confidence of the bookselling community.

Ouch!

But if it's an example of a signature like the Casino Royale above - maybe someone did get a genuine signed Fleming book...