Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chad B on April 30, 2017 at 2:53pm

Not an expert on The King's signature here either but I wouldn't buy the item in the original post.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on April 30, 2017 at 2:54pm

Look at the Es in Hendrix.

The top right shows them side by side.

The middle one shows them exactly overlaying each other, but I made the one on gray paper somewhat transparent.

The left one shows them offset slightly.

They line up perfectly and even have the ink blob in the same spot.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on April 30, 2017 at 3:15pm

These don't look like machine signed to me. Too much variation in pressure, tapered starts, etc. I've seen plenty of unauthorized machine fakes and they do not look this natural. Assuming these are fakes, in my opinion, the similarity is due to the forger learning the signature and repeating it nearly identical each time, i.e., cookie cutter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on April 30, 2017 at 3:19pm

Maybe it's a different process, but I don't think these are hand-signed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on April 30, 2017 at 3:26pm

There is significant difference in the two examples in the shape of the J, the size and proportion of the "imi." The Hendrix are very close to each other, but there are differences.

If you had a machine that could sign this well -- and presumably doesn't make mistakes like a freehand forgery -- why not use an album, photo or something else a bit more desirable? To me, the scraps of paper scream, "much trial and error."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JAKE JONES on April 30, 2017 at 5:59pm

Appears to me that many are stating that Mr. Epperson is wrong on both Elvis autographs. I`am i correct on assuming this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Webster on April 30, 2017 at 6:11pm

It would be a very dull world Jake if everyone agreed on everything all the time...

Would you agree?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on April 30, 2017 at 6:23pm

Unfortunately with quick opinions I feel there isn't a reasonable amount of time to do the same level of research as others who dedicate their time to certain artists.

What is nice about this (AML) is the collectors here take the time to track the buying/selling of certain pieces. As much as I trust Roger and have the utmost respect for him and his opinion, I don't know how difficult it can be trying to authenticate such a wide spread number of musicians.

It doesn't give much time to follow every piece in the market and where it came from. I think these things can obviously be important as we tend to see.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JAKE JONES on April 30, 2017 at 6:30pm

So i should request a refund from the seller?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on April 30, 2017 at 7:03pm

Jake,

If there's any collectible harder to authenticate than an autograph, I don't know what it is. Online opinions are not marketed as being as reliable as in-person opinions, and at $10-$15 each, most authenticators do them more as a service to help collectors than anything else.

And the authenticators do them based on the size and quality of the images sent to the authenticator, the authenticator doesn't see the autograph in person, and they are only meant to be initial opinions to provide a degree of safety when buying. If you want full authentication, you need to send it in.

If an authenticator knows a person's autograph, they can tell most fakes from an image. But they need see the autograph in person to confirm they feel it's genuine.

Did you send your first Elvis in so he could examine it in person to confirm his online opinion?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on April 30, 2017 at 9:52pm

I have always believed it is my job to at least try to determine live ink, try to weed out the copies, prints, obvious preprints/facsimiles, stamps, and to try and provide a huge properly exposed high res scan (when possible) when seeking an opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on April 30, 2017 at 9:55pm

Jake,

Roger and I disagree from time to time. There are lots of examples of that here over the years. When we do disagree, though, it usually turns out that Roger is right. But whether or not I agree with him once he makes his case, I still have tremendous respect for his opinion. He has proven that he is careful, conscientious, fair, honest and knows his field extremely well.

I thought I was wrong on these Elvis autographs after Roger said they were good, until Ballroom posted the other autographs from the same seller that caused me concern. 

Autographs aren't made from dies and printing plates like coins and baseball cards. Those are much easier to authenticate because you can identify highly consistent and documented manufacturing characteristics.

Every autograph is different. Great fake autographs often aren't recognized until you see similar inconsistencies in a number of examples, or you examine them in person and realize that they weren't legitimately signed.

That's why provenance, price and source is much more important for autographs than it is for many other collectibles. If something is fishy, or there is any area that doesn't make sense, like a dealer charging well under market for a popular autograph, you need to be ultra-sure they autograph and deal are OK.

Don't lambaste someone for giving you an honest, reasoned opinion that may not be right. Even the best make mistakes, and most of the people calling out the mistakes of legitimate autograph authenticators are people who are upset because their "questionable" autographs were rejected.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 17
• Next ›
• Page