Surprisingly, institutions do at least sometimes check that there's something on the signature line. I had a car registration renewal returned recently because I forgot to sign it. Given that my signature is a totally illegible scrawl, I don't see what good it does but we still pretend that what might as well be just an "X" for a lot of people actually means something.

And it can indeed be just an X. It displays intent. You placed a scrawl on the line to signify your intent to agree to/abide by whatever's on the paper. Without that intent, they assume you made a mistake.

I think it's better than blindly taking any paperwork without "signatures" on them.

What I'd love to have, for this purpose, is a signet ring with a stylized version of my initials on it.

If I need to sign something official, I'll pull out an stamp pad and a bottle of ink, soak the pad, press my ring into it, and then slam my hand down on the paper ring first.

That's the norm in Asian countries like Japan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_(East_Asia). They even have different types of seals that are used for just plain signatures and more important things like loans.

That's fair. It is something of an indication that "Yep. This is final." It's a bit silly in the case of a check that you have mailed but it's not a completely unreasonable practice in general.

I had a buddy who would always "sign" receipts by drawing little doodles on the line. A different doodle each time, ranging from simple to elaborate, from decent to obscene, but always comical.

In China, your signature usually has to be legible. I've got funny looks in the bank for apparently scribbling all over the signature field.

I had a check rejected at the bank. My signature didn't match the card on file closely enough, so they sort of put me through the ringer before they cashed it. Wasn't even a lot of money.

Same in Poland where they ask you to "sign legibly". Which makes completely no sense, my name is already printed somewhere else on the form.

You got lucky.

Bank managers will have clerks randomly pick a stack of checks and reject them so their clients feel like there's some auditing going on.

I was right there. I watched her try to match the signature.

That sounds like an old wives tale.

They do. I have been asked in the past to write as in my recorded sample or record a new one.

>I have been asked in the past to write as in my recorded sample

if you're a fraudster, this can be easily circumvented by going to a new financial institution?

>record a new one

wait, what's the point asking for a signature sample when you can always record a new one?

presumably the process for recording a new sample involves verifying your identity (e.g. going in person and providing a government id with photograph).

Maybe when there's a problem they do check ?

I know in France signature on bank checks are verified above a certain amount (3000€ or 5000€ I think but I'm not sure)

FWIW: Postal ballots require signatures. Election administrators often use software to assist and sometimes automate this task. The "challenge" rate varies, depending on competency, but can be as high as 1 per 1000. Which has definitely had an impact in close races.

Said as a recovering election integrity activist: the automated signature recognition systems I studied, some 10 years back, should be utterly rejected. The error rate (both false positive and negative) is unacceptable for elections. And much of this cannot be fixed with better algorithms. Signatures change as you age, you injured your wrist, and so forth.

Just as onerous, the election vendor businesses where pushing a "per voter" fee structure. So instead of just selling you the gear, they'd also charge 10 cents for every signature compared. On top of every ballot printed, mailed, tracked, etc.

In short, the push to postal balloting is basically a rent seeking exercise, to make up for the loss of revenue post-touchscreen debacle, and much more expensive overall.

Oh, I almost forgot a tidbit. Our State Patrol, who investigate check fraud, were employed to train our election signature verifiers. At the time, both they and the banks would only use the software to flag signatures, never to fully automate the task.

What about teaching it (EDIT: making a signature) as an art form, for the soul purpose of creating something unique? (EDIT: not necessarily cursive)

That seriously takes some control over one's own handwriting before it is really possible. Artful lettering has its own learning curve. Plus I'm not sure this is going to have benefits over any other sort of art training.

Additionally, I think this bypasses the real goal of writing - you need writing to be both efficient and legible to others as a base function. This is why hand-written notes to myself often are sloppy and without sentence structure, notes shared with others generally meet the above, and sometimes my writing is pretty and nearly typeface, with the "a" and the "g" written as it appears here. I think folks really need just that middle level of writing. I mostly do the pretty stuff so I can occasionally use it in artwork if I so choose.

I don’t see a reason for signatures to be legible, just identifiable.

Well, sure, for just a normal signature we use daily. Poster was talking about making the signature artful. It doesn't matter if it is legible or not at that point, but it still takes some control to pull off.

But then why cursive, and not any other of the millions forms of art?

Yes. Even in handwriting there are more forms than just D’Nealian or Palmer cursive. Why not Spencerian, Fraktur, or Carolingian?