Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 7, 2013 at 9:08am

That Clayton really doesn't look right at all.  Not authentic in my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike martin on March 7, 2013 at 9:22am

Well, thats not good...What don't you like about it? I've been looking around at others and some look close to this...But, i'm not an expert by any means...thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 7, 2013 at 9:48am

The first thing is the separation of the Adam and the Clayton, something you typically don't see.  In almost all instances I can recall since Adam switched to a full signature around the mid/late 90's, Adam has always signed his first and last name in one line - often as if it was one word.  I can't really think of an authentic example I've seen where I've seen "Adam" on top and "Clayton" underneath.

Aside from that, after the "A," just everything looks funky about this signature.  None of the lettering looks quite on target.  Overall, Adam's signatures are usually more "cramped" looking too.  The spacing on the lettering just looks too loose from beginning to end.

For reference, Mark Baker has an excellent example of Adam that he obtained himself.

http://live.autographmagazine.com/photo/bono-and-edge?context=user

Mark and Jason Smith are on this forum, both of whom probably have a better grasp on Adam than I do and can offer some good input.  Maybe they have a better idea on Adam's overall handwriting as well, as I can't really give much of any analysis on the inscription.

If this is somehow authentic, it would probably be just about the strangest Adam Clayton autograph I've ever seen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike martin on March 7, 2013 at 10:23am

Thanks for the input Rich...thought I had weeded out all my bad stuff, guess not. I'm not out much as far as I can remember. When I go to buy any U2 items...i'm going to pass them through here...thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Baker on March 7, 2013 at 8:18pm

Rich is correct in stating that there is a separation between the Adam and the Clayton.  Very rare.

But I like to use this site when I try to analyze U2 autographs that are "dated".  My autograph was from 2005.  So my autograph is quite modern.

This site is not kept up any more but I wanna point you to look at two of Adam's 90's autographs.

http://www.u2eastlink.com/collector/firmas/indexe.php

This is the OP autograph.

Here is a 90's autograph from Clayton.

See how the word "To" is written the same?

But even with the name being split into Adam and then Clayton.  Look at these for reference.

I agree with Rich that the separation in the name seems strange.....but for some reason, I have a feeling in my gut that *might* be legit.  Like a rushed signature..... 

Take a moment and look at the other links the the 1st link I provided.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 7, 2013 at 8:32pm

I saw that "To" as well and thought about that . . . then I realized how easy that would be to mimic.  Very simplistic handwriting for sure.

It just looks so whacked out and generally wrong at first glance.  I see a few merits when I look closely at some of the pen strokes, but every time I back up and look at the whole picture it's just hard to see it as authentic. 

Just as a disclaimer, I only really looked at examples from about 1995 on, since that's when it would seem that Adam made the switch from his typical old "Adam" signature to the full "Adam Clayton" we're used to seeing today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 7, 2013 at 8:51pm

Hey Mark, have you seen any other examples of Adam's handwriting overall (like handwritten notes etc)?  Eastlink doesn't seem to have much beyond autographs themselves.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on March 7, 2013 at 9:01pm

Ok, I looked at this example from 1984 . . .

And this one from 2000 . . .

And I feel a bit more hesitant in my opinion about Mike's Adam autograph.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Baker on March 8, 2013 at 3:45am

Sorry my links that I posted from the other site didn't show up.

But if you look at what Rich posted.....  you can see there are some similar features with those autographs and the OP's autograph.

You also should keep in mind that this is supposed to be an older autograph.  It wasn't "acquired" recently.  It sounds like the OP "found" this one in a collection from years ago.  I still think it is legit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike martin on March 8, 2013 at 6:30pm

Thanks for the info, I feel a little better about it now...Mike

• ▶ Reply