We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
George Harrison real or fake???
A while back I decided to give Mike Frost from P.A.A.S. a chance to authenticate a few of my Beatles autographs. He was significantly cheaper than many of the other authenticators and I had seen his EBay auction a number of times. I decided to send him this mid 70's Harrison autograph which, in my opinion, is pretty cut and dry a genuine autograph. To my disbelief he responded saying that autograph was in fact NOT authentic! Along with this signature I sent him others as well which he deemed as not genuine. I felt terrible knowing that these were real and I was just taken for my money to the tune of $400.00+ dollars. After I received the signatures I did the only thing one could do. I mailed them off to Frank Caiazzo for a true authentication. As expected, the autograph was indeed authentic. I felt a little more vindication when I found out that his authentication services were puled from EBay. BUT! I just ran across another one of his ebay auctions trying to lure unknowing patrons to use his services for Beatles autographs! I was as you can imagine quite peeved. In my opinion, I would stay as far away from a Mike Frost PAAS Beatles authentication as possible. It is my belief that he has no clue what is real and what is not and I would advise to save your money and go with someone more reputable in this business. Take a look at the example for yourself and you be the judge!!!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Peter leone on
-
This discussion is a very tough one to follow with all of the twists and turns and so on.
After reading through this mess I would like to say a few words.
I am confussed why Mike Frost is waiting for Roger Epperson to comment on the Harrison signature? Does Roger work for Frost? Is he a consultant for Frost? If Frank authenticated the signature that should be all you would need in my opinion since he is an expert on Beatles signatures.
I have a question for Mike Frost, if you own a company that authenticates signatures for money should'nt you stand behind what you do either right or wrong? If you said it was bad the first time you looked at it and accepted money for your "opinion" why would you now offer a refund based on the fact that Frank has authenticated the signature? You state on your rejection letter that you and your panel of autograph authenticators have examined the signature and found it to be not authentic. i am just curious as to who this panel consits of because it is obvious that you all got this one wrong.
Now Scott does not have all of the items any longer however I am sure you have a record of the other signatures he submitted since you keep a record in your computer which you state on the bottom of your rejection letter. If that is the case it should be pretty easy to find as you should have the submission number linked to the photos of the items that were submitted.
I am not sure how, what George ordered that day has to do with the signature being authentic or not?? Do we now authenticate signatures based on what celebrities eat?? Let's say this waitress had a check from someone elses order and had George sign it. Yes Scott mentioned the story that George was eating hot dogs, fries and coke whether the story told to him is true or not does that mean the signature is not real because George ate a hot dog? If authenticators are now basing their "opinions" on what a celebrity eats then we are all in trouble..
It seems to me that Frost was not and still may not be 100% sure of the authenticity of this signature and if that is the case then his findings should have been inconclusive and Scott should NOT have been charged. In fact since Frost has mentioned many times he will issue a refund he should just issue the refund out of good faith instead of talking about it. I mean Mike you still have all of Scotts paypal info because you posted Scotts address and everything on here for the world to see which is a tastless move on your part.
With all of this being said maybe I will try one of those soy hot dogs for Georges sake..
-
-
Xperttexpert indicated he wasn't asking for a refund as he more than made up for it in the sale. Simply put he is provding his opinion of the authenticator pure and simple. There also appeared to be some exaggerated claims which Frost challenged and appeared accurate which Xperttexpert apologized for making and flying off the handle.
Frost offered a refund. Epperson confirmed Caizzo regardless of reason and that's not a bad thing although Caizzo can hold his own in the area. Frost explained why he came to the decision he did and then it sort of started to spiral with drudging up the past along with what appeared to me accustations and so on.... followed by comments to "correct" perhaps but intended to discredit the commentor and defensive posturing which is what typically happens.
which after the "saber rattling" we have a slight debate of opinions or calls which are frankly opinions and irrelevant as the only ones that matter are the ones that were made formally. Reminds me of Monday morning quarterbacks. Doesn't make the opinions helpful or not but it detracts from the main theme.
which led us to this statement on the other 6 (I believe); After I received the signatures I did the only thing one could do. I mailed them off to Frank Caiazzo for a true authentication. Now Them implies to me more than the Harrison but that statement seems to have been retracted or perhaps muddied is a better word.
So who authenticated the other ones that refutes Frost's position of not authentic. Frost certainly has the copies but I presume is waiting for a posting of the opinons on the 6 along with post of the picture to ensure they are one and the same.
Of course this presumes I have followed the main theme and not become lost or distracted by the nonsense.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Frost on
-
DB,
I do have to thank you for you fair commentary of events. (((Maybe you should have handled the Presidential debates)):) You have been more then understanding and helpful but I did not come to AML to fight or be attacked on every point I make. I can offer and share my knowledge, 30 years of experience, my exemplars, opinions, inside information, and secrets of this business. It will be very hard if I have to defend everything I claim and have to defend myself against collectors that still want this to be a war. The twisting and turning of my point are very time consuming to correct. Now Mr. Peter Leone , I assume another autograph expert as changed around almost 6 hours of my time and work.
"I am just curious as to who this panel consist of because it is obvious that you all got this one wrong."Why is it so obvious that we all got it wrong? It is very hard to debate opinion, I just wanted to show that I did spend time on this and every examination. P.A.A.S. whether you agree or disagree with or decision does spent time on each examination. We do not just flip threw items and rip off our valued customers, and yes we do stand behind our work and decision.I am not sure how, what George ordered that day has to do with the signature being authentic or not?? Do we now authenticate signatures based on what celebrities eat??This once again has been explain 3 times, If you are joking that is fine but if you are serious, please re read the hole discussion but this time read my comments. The Hot dog is basically a joke and has nothing at all to do with the examination nor the authentication. I never even heard about this "Hot Dog" until yesterday, about a years after my examination.Yes Scott mentioned the story that George was eating hot dogs, fries and coke whether the story told to him is true or not does that mean the signature is not real because George ate a hot dog? If authenticators are now basing their "opinions" on what a celebrity eats then we are all in trouble..This is nonsense and does not even deserve a thought!I am confussed why Mike Frost is waiting for Roger Epperson to comment on the Harrison signature? Does Roger work for Frost? Is he a consultant for Frost? If Frank authenticated the signature that should be all you would need in my opinion since he is an expert on Beatles signatures.Why and were would you get the notion than Roger works for me?? Is it not allowed in the rule book to respect or value the opinion of another autograph authenticator? A consultant is also an interesting word, I believe you are saying does he get paid to offer an opinion to me. The answer would be NO he is not working nor involved with P.A.A.S. I have and hope to continue to have a relationship with Roger and other knowledgeable members of the autograph industry were as we can share information and opinions. I do consider Roger one of the top full time autograph authenticator's and I do respect his opinion.Frank Caiazzo is one of the best if not the best Beatles experts in the world, his word means a lot and he knowledge is priceless but that mean he never can make a mistake?? Does that me he can not be questioned or asked to have something explained or looked at? There is in no way any disrespect or discrediting in doing so. It is hard to believe that you would say one man's opinion or discussion is the end all and all that one would need. I prey you never need an operation..This has been taking up a lot of my time, I am trying everything possible to explain myself and I am here on AML for questioning and to help but I do have to make a living and do some work. I do autograph authentication full time and I am sorry to some but I do make my living doing so.
-
-
Mike,
I don't want to beat this up any more than it already is. I am also in no way trying to discredit you or your "opinion" however if you feel/felt so strongly about your "opinion" then you should stand behind it 100% no matter what anyone else has to say. If you are in the business of authenticating signatures then no matter what another authenticaton company or consultant says after you have made your opinion should not matter if you believe in your opinion. Hopefully you are understanding where I am coming from and this is just my "opinion".
I guess what I am trying to say is if you were not 100% sure either way (authentic vs not authentic) would'nt you feel much better just saying "we could not render an opinion"? Or if you were on the fence about it maybe have reached out to another consultant ie Frank or Roger and ask them what they thought. I saw in this thread that you mentioned that authenticators/consultants should band together to help eachother out. In a perfect world that would be the perfect solution however you are all in the business to make money and that is where it all falls apart.
I did'nt really mean to beat you up in my first post I just feel that a consumer paying good money for a service should have a solid opinion or no opinion at all. It's ok to say I'm not sure but here is someone else that may be able to help you.
I think we would all like to see the other items that Scott submitted to you and maybe that will help clear things up for you as to why you made the opinion you made on this 1 Harrison signature. Can you cross reference the submission number to the photo's you have taken of the items? Or do you happen to have a copy of the rejection letter in your files? Again I think this may clear up a few things. I am however curious why it took a full year for this to all come out and what the objective of bringing it up now was from Scott.
-
-
BallroomDays67
I again will thank you for handling this professionally and with an open mind. I did say "Appears" to be a mistake on my part. This was to start my discussion on the signature and this was based upon Frank Caiazzo's certificate. I had also said many times that I respect Frank's Opinion and in no way would have tried to discredit his work. It is possible to make an error and it I see no problem with questioning the opinion of even someone who you do respect.
This however is a far cry from what Mr. Mustard said. "I think it's funny how in one breath you apologize for a mistake and in the next you basically discredit other highly qualified authenticators."
-
Permalink Reply by MeanMisterMustard on
-
Mike,
My belief is that the Harrison in question is 100% authentic without any doubts. Now, i am not an expert and nor do I claim to be in this field, but i am an avid collector and hobbyist solely in Beatles autographs. The G and E of George are very typical of a mid 70's signature along with the truncated N on Harrison. One of the biggest give aways as well is the R in George. I have never seen a forgery that was able to replicate the proper angle and lines he uses. Here is an example from I ME Mine. Maybe you should add this one to your pile of exemplars.
Here is one pulled right from tracks website. He claims its a late 70's early 80's signature. Very typical fromt the time period. The elongated G in George is very similar. Look at the E at the end of George. Its identical.
I do have to say I am impressed that you have stood your ground on your opinions on the validity of this signature. It is the right thing to do from a business stand point and helps your credibility as a dedicated authenticator. But, like religion and politics, it very difficult to sway opinions with words.
-
-
Thank you for you exemplar, it is beautiful and I do believe it is without question authentic. I do not see the same issues or concerns in other one of the 2 exemplars you have posted. The bridge from the O to the E seen once again in both your examples. The figure *8* S in Harrison, The connection of the G to the E in George, The 1st S in Harrison. Also with the 2 exemplars that you have just added when enlarged I do not see any sign of Ink Blots, and signs of stopping and starting an I also notice a difference in the speed and size of most of the letters. My other concern would come with the 'TO' in the personalization, I world love to see a few more examples especially if you can find me any with the O in To with this shape and the O in To so high and close to the T.Thank you and I do appreciate you help and your knowledge.I just would like to ask you and I know it is not important to the signature nor the authentication but does this signature on a 1960 menu trouble you at all considering all the other minor inconsistencies I have stated.
-
-
Here is a menu from disneyland from 1961
A hamburger was .65 cents and coca cola was .15 cents. On the Ticket in question the burger is .80cents and the coke is .25cents. a clear difference in price. I think it is safe to say that the difference in years justifies the near 25% and 75% price increase. The menu prices to me have no bearing in my belief of the validity of this signature. In one of your earlier comments you stated that it felt, looked and "smelled" older than 1977. We dont know how this ticket was stored or handled for the last 35 years. Tell me, what does 1977 smell like to you?
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
I think this is a kid's menu. Funny there's no hot dog on it, though.
-
-
I did look into that and it not a kids menu and the Hot Dog is there for 65.cents.It must be a JUMBO because it is right above the 56 cent regular Corn dog.. Boy has time changed here at Disneyworld a Hot Dog is $7.50.
-
-
its the only one I could find that was actually dated. Others had similar prices, but did not have a date. This conversation is never going to get resolved. Unless devine intervention occurs and the good Lord himself tells us if its real or not, this could go on forever! At least I have seen some fine examples of authentic Georges and heard some valid points on what makes his signature authentic.
-
-
That's how it sometimes goes in autographs. Mike is welcome to think it's bad. I see pieces every now and then that everyone but I agree on, one way or the other.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
