Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on February 25, 2016 at 8:46am

Here is another picture of the piece .

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• image.png, 3.2 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2t7o4rndea2r0 on February 25, 2016 at 4:13pm

THAT IS FRICKIN' AWESOME.  Dude - you're gonna need to build a museum.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on February 25, 2016 at 4:40pm

Thanks Chris. Lol!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cogo on February 25, 2016 at 10:20am

This is fantastic Paul, congrats to yet another great signature!

But unfortunally I can't help with what year it were signed...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 25, 2016 at 10:26am

very nice, Paul.  late seventies for sure.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nick Maas on February 25, 2016 at 10:50am

Wow, that's very nice! Even better that it was signed with a marker and not a pen. Beautiful... 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on February 25, 2016 at 12:03pm

I hate to say it it but I don't like it. Just my opinion of course, hopefully it came with a COA from somebody who's opinion trumps mine?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on February 25, 2016 at 2:15pm

I think the signature is perfect.He definitly didn't rush this one.The letters in Lennon are all very well formed ,unlike a lot of his later 70's sigs where he tended to trail off with a lot of squiggles .It does come with 2 coas from reputable companies.I actually found a piece that he signed that had an exact "love " on it that looks exactly like the one shown here.
Here is that piece.
Karl,I'm curiuos to know what you don't like about it?

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• image.png, 2.5 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on February 25, 2016 at 2:42pm

Fair enough Paul, it would be a bit unfair of me to throw doubt upon your purchase without providing an explanation when requested.

I posted examples of some very late John Lennon signatures here , they might help as a comparison. I'll try to put my doubts into words. Apart from the fact that it just doesn't look right to me (vague I know) I think that the J is too small, maybe slightly angled wrong to the left leaving the gap from the O to the L looking too distended also it's not so common to see the end of the signature extended with the final N as clear as it is with this signature from the late 70's (although not unknown, I own a similar one).

It's strange but I have felt bad about a couple of other John Lennon autographs from that auction too. If you have a COA from a respected Beatles expert then please disregard my opinion or be confident with your own opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on February 25, 2016 at 3:18pm

I actually read that thread last week before the auction.I appreciate you explaining why you have doubts,I agree the "j"is rather small and missing a loop but I also think imo that it doesn't mean that the sig is not real.I believe at that moment in time,he just happened to pen a small "J",I more focused on the double "nn"s in lennon .just the strokes of them imo matched up nicely with a few of the examples I looked at from the period.Again that's also my opinion.I always defer to the pros on pieces.that's again for your opinion,it was informative.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 25, 2016 at 3:49pm

I think it is very difficult to apply a technical evaluation to Lennon signatures.  you could line up 10 different authentic signatures and they would look like they came from 10 different signers, if you try to look at letter height, slant etc.  I just don't feel its possible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on February 25, 2016 at 4:39pm

I agree with you 100%.He changed his autograph so so many times from 1960 to 1980.I would even say that they may well be more varieties of his sig in the 70's than the 60's.I also think using slant heights etc. might not always be the way to go.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page