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

Guitar Signed by The Beatles, Rolling Stones and Other Artists in the TCM-Bonhams March 27 Auction

Last I heard, there were no genuine, intact Beatles-signed guitars known. The only one was reportedly destroyed in a Malibu, Calif. landslide about 15 years ago.

RR Auction sold one a Beatles signed guitar around 2010, but the owner had tapped the autographs down with an awl to, um, "preserve them."

So I was surprised yesterday to see guitar signed by The Beatles, Stones, and 30 other artists in the TCM-Bonhams Rock and Roll Through the Lens Auction, being held March 27 in New York.

Bonham's says guitar signed by early Top of the Pops guests starting in early 1964, including The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Dusty Springfield, and many others.

The Beatles autographs looked real to me, but I asked a friend who knows Beatles up and down. He got back to me this morning after checking them out carefully.

He says the autographs are real. And he saw the guitar in-person in the early 1990s in a Sotheby's or Christie's auction.

Here's the mystery: The one reportedly destroyed in the mudslide was also signed by the Stones and other artists.

Could this be the same guitar?

I asked years ago for photos of the one supposedly destroyed, but I never was able to locate any.

Most of all... Do you think the autographs are real?

These are images of The Beatles autographs on the guitar that I've enhanced to make them easier to see. Click to enlarge them.

John Lennon

Paul McCartney

George Harrison

Ringo Starr

What do you think?

Tags: Rock and roll through the lens, TCM presents, auction, autograph, beatles, rolling stones, signed guitar

1 member likes this

Comment by Eric Keith Longo on March 8, 2017 at 5:53pm: That specific craquelure would have to be under and over the ink for lack of words and the gaps will run through the signatures. Extremely bold for a forger - these cracks can be simulated but not reproduced to a trained eye. This type of cracking is reminiscent of the surfaces of early egg tempera and oil paintings - this stuff reveals quick when/if examined. It would also be interesting to determine the order the signatures were laid down. I wonder what (large) % of the authentication of this would not even involve looking at the signatures?

Comment by KarlKeaton on March 8, 2017 at 7:11pm: Comment by KarlKeaton 30 minutes ago
Delete Comment
The formation of the Beatles signatures looks fine to me as well considering that it's far from the easiest media to sign, especially with the pens of that time.

As Eric has alluded to; focus would naturally become more concentrated on other areas in terms of establishing the likelihood of authenticity. Apart from the scientific/forensic angle there would of course be provenance based upon the items known history, who obtained the signatures etc. Also the other (non-Beatle) signatures might be able to be researched which might add or detract from the story of the guitars history.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 8, 2017 at 8:11pm: You're right. It's signed on a guitar that they'd have to dig into it to sign, so it affects how someone signs. You don't have to dig in too hard, because acoustic guitars don't have heavy coats of lacquer. But it would affect your writing.

But Alexander could be right. And we're not looking at the guitar in person.

When I first saw the guitar, before even looking at the signatures, I thought there was no way it could be real. The provenance put me on edge, too. Not enough detail.

But once I looked at the signatures closely, I thought they had a decent chance. The only non-Beatles autograph I looked at was Brian Jones, but they'd all need to be checked.

Comment by Eric Keith Longo on March 8, 2017 at 8:32pm: These craquelure patterns don't look right to me, FWIW.

Comment by BallroomDays67 on March 8, 2017 at 9:28pm: If it's a fake (which I doubt), the forger obscured the most valuable signature by signing the "J" in Brian Jones' signature over "John."

I like how Ringo added "A Beatle" under his signature, just in case someone didn't know.

Comment by Thorsten Knublauch on March 8, 2017 at 10:17pm: On the first look they look good - considering that they wrote on glossy wood and not on paper. On the other hand they look too typical if you think of the wood. Could one sign on wood like this?

I am also unsure if a 50 year old guitar has to look that bad or if that was aged by someone to bolser the story.

One really has to check the writing marks, all the other signatures (Brian Jones looks strange) and the aging spots in person to get a final answer.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 9, 2017 at 6:38am: Those are good points, Thorsten. I figured that the guitar was lacquered over at some point.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 9, 2017 at 6:49am: Ballroom,

Those are good points.

The guitar can't be properly authenticated from photos. It has to be seen in person.

Comment by Alexander Mehl on March 9, 2017 at 7:17am: Btw, the words "A BEATLE" below the writing "Ringo Starr" wasn't written by Ringo and there's no need to see it in person.