We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

3 Pauls I would not buy

Too many things that look false IMO (and the opinion of some of my collectors friends in the US and Europe). Any opinions here?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ricardo on May 5, 2017 at 1:09am

first one could be ok ? not others

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on May 5, 2017 at 2:18am

I'm not that hot on later solo Paul's but I concur with Ricardo's opinion. I'd say the first signature has a fair chance of being genuine but I don't like the other two.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thorsten Knublauch on May 5, 2017 at 2:23am

All three come with a COA from Epperson at RR auctions....

I rate all 3 as false - very easy to spot IMO.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ricardo on May 5, 2017 at 3:05am

What features about the first one are you concerned about? I've see a few genuine ones that look like this

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on May 12, 2017 at 8:13am

So nobody appears to like the two signed photos. The consensus on the first autograph is mixed. Could someone who thinks it is not authentic explain what makes them believe so?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. Steffman on May 12, 2017 at 9:27am

I don't like the extra round P, the unusual u, the bottom of the l, the unfinished M, or the C-swoop. It could be real, but there's way too many unusual things in 1 autograph for me to like it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thorsten Knublauch on May 12, 2017 at 9:37am

I dont like everything after "Paul"....

It is funny - nobody likes them - but they all have a COA from Epperson and if you look at the prices reached in the recent RR auction most of the bidders had no trust either...