We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

Beatles real or fake???

Here is a link to a set of "Beatles" autographs on eBay. The seller believes it to be real, but in my belief it is clearly an Aspinall. A nice example of his signatures and in great condition, but to be stated as authentic Beatles autographs and already have bids up to $1700.00 is a little scary.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2006891824...

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gabe Boyers, Schubertiade Music on December 31, 2011 at 9:05am

One of the worst forgeries I've ever seen and with a Caiazzo certification:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Beatles-OUTSTANDING-JOHN-LENNON-YOKO-ONO-SI...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 029r4yc06b4rr on December 31, 2011 at 3:20pm

Hi Gabe,

Just curious, do you think that the Caiazzo cert is bogus or do you think Caiazzo got it wrong. I would say that their is alot higher chance that if their is any problem with it, that its due to someone forging or messing around with a Caiazzo cert. Frank is honestly just too good to make a mistake on a common fogery. As far as i know hes the most knowledgeable Beatles expert in the world, so it may be someone is just messing around and using a forgery to try and bump up sales.

Chris

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sidney Fields on December 31, 2011 at 3:38pm

I doubt that Frank Caiazzo got a Beatles item wrong.

And BOTH Frank and Perry Cox being wrong???

Or Perry Cox using a forged Caiazzo COA????

C'mon.

And happy new year.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gabe Boyers, Schubertiade Music on December 31, 2011 at 3:44pm

True, Caiazzo is very good, but he can make mistakes too - some of the McCartney Hofner basses floating about with his certs are also highly questionable, imho. And the seller is also a generally reliable one and he wouldn't be messing around with a forged certificate. All I can tell you that I wouldn't personally go near that Lennon signature.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sidney Fields on December 31, 2011 at 4:15pm

No disrespect meant at all, Gabe....but Caiazzo has 20-plus years focusing SOLELY on The Beatles.

Sure, anyone can make a mistake. But it would seem extraordinarily unlikely in his case...especially on a piece that may be an "atypical" Lennon.

If a Beatles item has his COA, I'd take it to the bank.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gabe Boyers, Schubertiade Music on December 31, 2011 at 4:51pm

Thanks for the feedback. Sure, I may be wrong and anyone who claims to be infallible (as far as I know, Mr. Caiazzo has never stated any such thing) is highly suspect. I agree, he knows a thing or 2 (well, yes, even more than 2!) on this matter. But look at this piece - I really think it's just wrong. The ink is classic forger's paradise- take a cruise on ebay and you'll see that many forgeries are in a similar liquidy thick stuff where all nuance is lost. And I respect his opinion, just putting it out there that I think this piece is just wrong.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 31, 2011 at 5:03pm

I like the Lennon autograph, but Gabe is right: even the best experts can make mistakes; and this seller would verify with Caiazzo that the LOA is real, so no question there. The seller also knows his stuff and offers a lifetime guarantee.

Thanks for giving your opinion on this, Gabe. Would you mind showing or telling us what you don't like about it? I captured it from eBay:

Since we're talking about Lennon, here's a link to a blog on postcards Lennon sent a fan in 1979 and 1980. http://live.autographmagazine.com/profiles/blogs/lennon-and-me-fant...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gabe Boyers, Schubertiade Music on December 31, 2011 at 5:28pm

Thanks Steve. Well, it just looks clumsy to me. There are "points" surely: from this period (including in the postcard from 1970 - well, actually in all 3! - you just linked to) the "J" arcs in a totally different way. Nothing like this one. The next letters seem belabored to me - either you are careful or fluently sloppy (at least that's always how Lennon seems to me), but here I see a carefully made not-good "a" or "u" and a strangely formed but not just thrown off "hn" . The Lennon also just looks so off, especially after the first couple of letters- so careful. Why is he trying so hard? And two tiers, with the L starting right in the first name, also very atypical. And the "69" - again, not shaped right, the little tail on the 9 is very weird. It all seems oddly purposeful. Nicely placed, perfectly on the white, spread out evenly - and Yoko over there too! - just doesn't feel like him. My 2 cents, anyway - based on a tiny image through glass.

Since this is going on, let me reiterate that I'm not out to impugn the motives or general seriousness of Perry or Caiazzo here. They are obviously not intentionally trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I'm just putting this out there for discussion - keeps us all sharp!

And with that, I'm off to New Year's dinner! Happy 2012 everyone:)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 31, 2011 at 5:59pm

Gabe, you are so right—these discussions are really valuable.

Have a HAPPY NYE...and a great 2012.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 31, 2011 at 7:59pm

Gabe, I forgot to mention that the postcard that looks like it was dated 1970 was actually dated 1979. The collector corresponded with Lennon in 1979-80. The 9 is incomplete.