No from me.
It doesn’t look authentic to me either, unfortunately.
Sorry Joe, another no go(od).
This set is a horrible set of forgeries, clumsy fakes (although John's has potential).
I'm new to this site and I understand that I was a fool buying this but let's not get to harsh
or mean spirited, I compared Ringo's signature with examples on current Frank Caiazzo's
site I can't find one difference with any cuts/albums he authenticated....
Could you please identify letter by letter what you see as horrible, the one I really had a
question about was Lennon's signature if any, please help me to understand what is
so horrible about this cut, let's have constructed criticism if possible.
Yesterday I did send this to Epperson for the $15.00 quick fee explanation, you can check with
him he actually thought Ringo and George were very close but no cigar.
Thank you for your time really appreciate it, but I do have feelings...
The letter formations and size relations are off and they are all drawn with the same pressure. It almost looks like a print. The second "g" in "George" shows hesitation as does the "n" in "Harrison - same with the ending upstroke in "Lennon". The whole of the "Paul McCartney" is off in size and execution. Please don't take comments about the signatures personally - folks are talking about the signatures, not you. :)
Thank you, Eric.
And Joe: No rudeness or insensitivity meant or implied, just stating the obvious opinion from an original 67 year old Beatles fan.
Thank you for writing back and appreciate your sentiment. We are all entitled to our
opinions and expressions of individuality. If I was out of line I'm sorry.
Great to hear you are 67.... guess what - 67 here as well - March '54...
I told Ballroomdays67 that 1954 was a great year for people.
Now I think we can see more eye to eye to one another.
Joe: December, 1953, lol!