I would pass on this. First, the J in john does not look right, there is no n on the John and the e in Lenon is as big as the L when the norm is to be more in line with the nnon. I do not think this is worth the risk.
It looks okay, not great. To me, here's the attitude EVERYBODY should have.
It's just not worth the risk. It just isn't. If you are purchasing an autograph, it should be an air tight story, you know the person, or an auction house that will refund the money years later (which means you'll also be paying more).
I try myself to compare all Beatles autographs i look at to help find differences between known real ones and the fake ones. This one just has some good and some not so good characteristics. I compared it to some examples from the WFIL signing, but cant come to a definitive answer. The "J" looks a bit funny, but the "lennon" looks great to me.
sorry, but I disagree. the slant of the letters in Lennon appears way off. and entire signature looks like it was slowly written.
I don't think its real
Yes, that's the way John autographed in 1975. I know because I had him sign a book in 1975 at WFIL studios in Philadelphia and that looks very much like it.
I understand that. You don't know me. But I did meet him and he did sign the book. When I get the cert I will upload a copy for you. I'm uploading a copy of the autograph later today. There's also another site with another JL autograph the same time period and I believe the same place and being met with the same skepticism. That also is very close to this one and mine. He was signing a lot of things for people at WFIL studios the couple of days he spent there. I guess that's his rushed signature...