Beatles John Lennon from 75. Is it real?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Hirsh on February 29, 2012 at 9:07am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh Board on February 29, 2012 at 10:31am

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).

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MeanMisterMustard on February 29, 2012 at 11:40am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 29, 2012 at 4:28pm

sorry, but I disagree. the slant of the letters in Lennon appears way off.  and entire signature looks like it was slowly written.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 29, 2012 at 4:26pm

I don't think its real

• ▶ Reply