Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Booth on July 3, 2015 at 7:03am

The signatures look right, but can't tell from the image if they are printed or hand signed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on July 3, 2015 at 12:00pm

Thanks Richard.
I struggle with this one because on the whole they appear OK, but at the same time there seem to be some minor issues. The Jimmy Page looks a little 'loose', the John Bonham has a quirky little tail-off which isn't typical from what I can find, and the Robert Plant autograph seems to be his earlier (early 70s) style and by this time (mid-late 70s) his autograph I believe had taken on a slightly different look (particularly with the 'p' and 'l' in plant being joined up).
It probably is fine, and I'm sure the poor quality image doesn't help, but it was for these reasons that I would like to get other peoples opinions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xwiesy on July 3, 2015 at 12:56pm

That is too good to be true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xwiesy on July 3, 2015 at 1:04pm

That doesn't look like a John Paul Jones vintage sig, does it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on July 4, 2015 at 12:59am

Thanks for that. So there is a chance this is a more recent JPJ sig with possibly an "overly vintage" Robert Plant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on July 3, 2015 at 1:07pm

It's not realistic to try to authenticate autographs based on a small image like that. If you can't get a larger one, don't even consider it. That said, they look slowly sign and in too similar a hand to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on July 4, 2015 at 12:55am

I completely appreciate that a definitive answer on this piece based on the meagre image provided is impossible. However some views can still be provided (eg the 'slowly signed' view you have given)
After my extremely good fortune in obtaining a fully signed Led Zeppelin LP I have been trying to pull together information on other known authentic fully signed LPs, and I am trying to figure out if this one should go on the 'authentic' list or the 'questionable' one.
As I have stated I have my reservations on this one, but I am far from an expert and there are much more knowledgable fellows than me on this site, hence I would love others to provide their opinions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Booth on July 3, 2015 at 2:42pm

The JPJ is not vintage. It is the signature he signs when he is not in a rush.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Booth on July 3, 2015 at 2:44pm

Here is my vintage Plant for comparison.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• image.jpg, 41 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on July 4, 2015 at 12:44am

Thanks Richard. Do you have a date on that one? I assume it's early-mid 70s, as the P and L are linked but it's not followed by an overly exaggerated loop?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on July 4, 2015 at 8:27am

Here is my band signed for comparison.its from 1974. Hope this helps.it looks good to me,hard to tell from the small picture though.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• image.jpg, 133 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on July 4, 2015 at 10:04am

Thanks Paul. So I see the P and L are joined on your Plant one which is at least 2 years older than this one. And although Bonhams autograph did sometimes curl downwards at the end this is pretty rare (and your one doesn't as I would normally expect to see).
Attached is a signed copy of Led Zeps next release (after Presence) and you can see how Plants autograph had developed over this time.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• image.jpg, 304 KB

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page