in expecting to actually be able to read a signature.

When you have to sign your sig many times a day it does become a scrawl , as the name is clearly printed and the person signing will know that you don't actually need to read the sig to know who the letter is from I really don't see that it matters.

A legible signature would surely be much harder to forge than a scrawl, so it would seem that there is a practical reason for it as well as its being an act of courtesy.

When I was working I had to sign a lot of things through the day (and a mound of letters at the end of the day). My signature was always clear - that way the recipient knew I had read the letter and signed it not some faceless clerk.

When I was a gp, my father, also a gp said that my signature looked like a caterpillar run over by an articulated lorry. So I sigbed

Signed the next one carefully. 10mins later the chemist was on the phone ' I think we have a forged prescription here'

DD has a signature that looks like a hyroglyph with no semblance to her name. I have told her several times that it would be very easy to forge but she just says the bank has never complained and nor as anybody else, sigh

Yep - if you can read a doctor's signature on a prescription- call the cops!

Anybody see the Matt cartoon about the doctors' strike a few weeks ago? All carrying illegible placards

I don't think I ever take much notice of signatures. Especially if it is a generic letter..poor chap may be on his uppers and desperate for a bit of business and people are worried about his signature??. I actually think it's easier to copy a neat sig than a scrawl!

When Adam was a lad, I used to work in a bank, and we had to check the signatures on every cheque that came through the system.
Now the signatures on cheques and a lot of other forms are redundant as they either get scanned/have magnetic numbers/or pin numbers.

My name takes too long to write so my signature comprises my initials in a flourish. It's not meant to be legible, especially as I was taught always to print my name underneath when signing a letter anyway; it's just My Mark. That's all signatures were ever meant to be. Think signet rings and sealing wax.

Yes, it's a matter of pride to some people that their signature is illegible!

Not a matter of pride for me, nag, if mine is illegible. I don't know if anyone else can read it because no-one has ever said. The letters I use are all formed in my usual script which was legible when I wrote a lot. No, pride doesn't come into it; it's just a unique mark. So long as it is clear who is represented by the signature (by the printed name – printed by hand or by machine), legibility of the unique mark is surely irrelevant? It is pattern recognition that is important.

My father was proud of his scrawl - but it was embarrassing for me when forms etc. were handed back at school by the monitor and they could never read it. It was only a short surname, but the signature could have belonged to a Featherstonehaugh or similar!

Actually, I've just realised Mr Anagram's signature is just a scribble! But because it's always the same scribble, he's never had any problems, even in the days when cheques were more common.

I once had to go to the bank to re submit my signature in person! I had unconsciously changed the way I wrote the E and it had become more rounded in shape!

My parents had legible signatures and so have I - but my DSs are horrible scrawls. However, what matters is that they are consistent scrawls.

I do agree to a degree but I have to throw something into the mix for some people who are not just lazy or too busy to care.

My S.I.L is dyslexic and it's not just his signature you can't read, there are a lot of dyslexics around!

You're right, POGS, but as far as signatures are concerned, consistency is the key, not legibility.
I agree with whoever said it is good practice to print or type one's name underneath the signature when writing a business letter anyway.