Authenticity is Everything
A Doors Mystery - A Fully-Signed Light My Fire German Picture Sleeve
This signed picture sleeve will be offered in the next Gotta Have Rock and Roll auction.
I don’t see an issue with the signatures. However, the problem is the provenance. It’s a German picture sleeve, and in the letter of provenance the original recipient provides a very specific and detailed account of getting it signed on 9/14/68 in Germany.
The confusing part is that the photo on the front of the sleeve was taken on 9/18/68 in Copenhagen. So, obviously the picture sleeve didn’t exist on the date he claims it was signed.
It was released after the Doors returned to the US. As far as I know, they didn’t return to Europe as a group until they played the Isle of Wight Festival in August of 1970.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on
-
That’s an interesting thought. It would indeed explain the date format.
-
Permalink Reply by JK on
-
Yes, very plausible scenario. If it was done at the request of a US person that might explain what appears to me to be US size paper. Maybe typed up in the US, and sent to him for his signature.
As has been stated, there are other issues with the backstory, though.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
I looked at the listing for the first time and the LOP isn't in it:
https://gottahaverockandroll.com/The_Doors_Ultra_Rare_Signed__Light...
-
-
Not too surprising.
It’s actually the type of provenance I would expect if someone put a good effort into the story while making an incorrect assumption about the item. They might figure that the Frankfurt show would be great for the story because “Light My Fire” was originally released in 1967, the show was in 1968, and it would make sense to have a German release on hand to be signed at the show.
-
Permalink Reply by michelle on
-
but it is interesting that gotta have decided not to include it. this has been imo one of the most interesting threads this year, thanks for posting ballroom
-
-
Thanks, Michelle. It’s a confusing one for sure. I would guess that the auction house would have included the LOP had they received it.
-
-
I received it when I was asked for an opinion of the signatures.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on
-
I know nothing about music autographs, but I do not recall a major auction house removing a LOA previously used for support. I cannot believe the LOA was a mistranslation, unless someone can also mistranslate dates, too. That LOA is a perfect storm of confusion and errors. Not only is it undated, it is also not notarized. I agree with Mr. Crykin's assessment of the LOA.
I usually only look at signatures, the ink used, and what it is signed on. An LOA from a good authority is nice, but it is the sprinkles, not the donut. I find the auction house's removal without comment to be mind-boggling. BallroomDays67 believes the signatures to be likely real, and that carries far more weight for me than any LOA.
In my opinion at the very least, the removal of the LOA infers that the auction house no longer has faith in it. Obviously, it now is a bit of an Albatross. They should say that with their belief, the piece should stand on the signatures alone. If they believe the LOA is genuine, but erroneous they should state those reasons also. It is always better to admit an error than to try to bury it.
-
Permalink Reply by Josh Board NEW & Improved on
-
Great points, Scott.
-
-
Thanks, Scott. To clarify, I looked at the auction listing on the day the auction went live, which I believe was the first day the auction listing appeared on the site. The LOP wasn’t pictured and there was no mention of the provenance. I received images of the item and LOP prior to the auction. I would guess that the LOP never made it to the auction house due to the discrepancy issue.
© 2025 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
