Autograph Magazine Live

The Authentic Experience

Saw this Lennon the other day. The gentleman claims it was signed in mid 70's. I will admit that I cant give a Lennon a thumbs up or down as fast as I can a Ringo. What do you guys think?

Tags: John, autograph, beatles, lennon, signed

Views: 282

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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



Blog Posts

A Dopey Story

Posted by Clive Young on March 22, 2014 at 6:28pm 5 Comments

Graphing as a Family

Posted by Tony Varvel on February 22, 2014 at 5:30pm 3 Comments

When Pens let you down!

Posted by Micko on February 22, 2014 at 3:53am 14 Comments

Great deal for a Lee Van Cleef autograph

Posted by Mike P on February 19, 2014 at 10:36am 1 Comment

Free celebrity address search



© 2014   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Community Manager.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service