Pink Floyd

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bjarne Soderholm on October 30, 2011 at 4:56pm

I do not think they are genuine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by A.B. on October 31, 2011 at 4:12am

Hi Bjarne,

do you have sigs from that era in your collection to compare with?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bjarne Soderholm on October 31, 2011 at 6:45pm

No I don't. It's just my gut feeling that tells me that they are not  genuine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike aring on October 31, 2011 at 11:31pm

ask roger because i'm definately no expert, but to me... these are good... that waters looks like stuff i got back in 2000-2001. never got richard, so i couldn't tell you on that one... mason looks a lot nicer than what you get now, but looks good too. gilmour looks spotty, but i can see that one being real too as it's:

A) not on the same card as roger, but on a card with another guy in the band. and since he's the hardest one living, i could see him being so arrogant as to sign through someone else's name.

b) just a much better version than what he's willing to sign now. not a whole lot of differences except larger and a few more letters you can make out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike aring on October 31, 2011 at 11:37pm

do

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike aring on October 31, 2011 at 11:37pm

do love how gilmore knew he was gonna run out of room with his autograph and started running it up the side.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Jones on November 4, 2011 at 6:18am

i don't think these are genuine. The signatures are not the way Floyd signed in 1971

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by A.B. on November 4, 2011 at 6:59am

I would like to see some examples from that era to compare them to.

All I have is this 1968 signed album from the R&R auction in September 2010...and I think these signatures match pretty well.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Jones on November 4, 2011 at 8:16am

the Gilmour and Mason are way out I would say compared to the 68 example.

The only signature I would agree on is the Waters signature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by A.B. on November 4, 2011 at 9:07am

In my opinion the Masons are VERY alike...apart from the tail end of the signature.

But hey, I guess we have to agree to disagree :)

Your input is appreciated. I hope someone can provide some other late 60´s/early70´s signatures that lead us in the right direction. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Jones on November 4, 2011 at 11:11am

It appears that Nick only used the swirl at the end of his signature when he signed first name only.

Attachments:

• pink floyd 1.jpg, 15 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by A.B. on November 4, 2011 at 1:09pm

That might be a pattern for the few sets shown here, but in the 2nd set Ted has postetd he didn´t use the swirl in his first name only signature at all.

The former owner of the autographs said he did a 20 minute interview with the band after a show in Germany. So imo the autographs weren´t rushed...may be Nick gave him a very nice sig with a swirl after his last name, because they gave the autographs in a relaxed atmosphere?!

I know...could be true, could be not...

Plus the Nick signature is on the backside of the Rick & David signature. Would a forger actually do this?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page