Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Beatleworld on March 5, 2013 at 3:12pm

That's what a forger's job is...to make it look as close to the original as possible...the set is a fake.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on March 5, 2013 at 3:18pm

What do you consider to be "glaring mistakes" on this piece?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beatleworld on March 5, 2013 at 3:39pm

The set is one of the better attempts however is still not an authentic set...some mistakes are....the "r" in ringo, the "s" in starr, the "lennon" is very bad, the "p" and "l" in paul the "harrison" is horrible too....if you look carefully you'll see where the pen stops where it shouldnt for example the "j" , john, the "r" in ringo, the "m" in mccartney and the "o" in harrison...the line under Mccartney is done by a right handed person, we all know that Paul is a leftie..... these are un-natural pauses made only when someone is trying to copy something...after looking at it for a minute or two...you'll easily realise that this is crap...it was offered on ebay....5+plus years ago but there were no takers on there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 5, 2013 at 4:02pm

I actually did an evaluation on these yesterday because I thought someone was asking me about this item, but it turns out they were asking me about something else.  I happen to agree with Beatleworld's concerns, as I share them.  I am not as adament that it is a fake, because I am not totally convinced, but there are things that are really off.  The "Lennon" bothers me more than anything, followed by "Paul" and the end of Mccartney, including the line.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on March 5, 2013 at 4:43pm

I like the "R" in "Ringo". It has the down and up formation to begin the letter, and the subtle bend before the end of the letter. The shape looks right. The pen stop in the "J" in "John" appears to possibly have been caused by the ink flow, and not a stop and start. Wouldn't the line under the Paul go from right to left? He would finish the "Y" and continue on to form the line from right to left. I have a Macca autograph (from many years later), and the line also appears to begin at the right. Look at the light transition from the "M" in "McCartney" to the first "C". Very well done, if it's a forgery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beatleworld on March 5, 2013 at 4:54pm

I don't what else to write...they are 100%  not...authentic in my opinion...the only place for them is the bin.... as I said earlier a forger's job is to make them look identicle....I'm surprised that some people think they are good.. another reason there are so many fakes out there...easy money and an even easier sell to the right person...if people think these are good...then there must be some horrors out there in peoples collections !!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spaceman on March 5, 2013 at 5:26pm

Fair point Beatleworld. You raised some very good reasons. They could be deemed good forgeries because a lot of collectors probably would consider them original.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xperttexpert on March 5, 2013 at 6:46pm

after really studying this set, beatleworld is right. this is a very good fake. the thing that led me first to say it was real was the inscription, supposedly by ringo, done very well. the tip off to me is the 2nd 'g' in george, fake.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 6, 2013 at 4:18pm

xpert, that is one of the things that bothered me also. along with the P and L.  there were enough things that bothered me about this that I would vote no.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on March 6, 2013 at 3:01pm

I'm going to go with authentic for this set (I wish more people would commit themselves to an opinion one way or the other, nobody likes to  appear to be wrong but a good concensus can only help in the long run IMO). All the signatures appear to be in late 62/very early 63 style. To those who are alarmed at John's signature in this set, check out this John Lennon signature from the same period. It's certainly very similar to the autograph in this set.

Of course I could be wrong and if so then it's a very alarming development that good forgers are becoming wise to the variations in The Beatles signatures over time, it has always been the downfall of many forgers. Somebody mentioned a 'Joe Long' signed Double Fantasy being withdrawn from Ebay very recently. I saw the image before it was withdrawn and the signatures (John & Yoko) were both very much 1980 style and different to the 70's type signatures he is more well known from (I did have some direct dealing with Joe Long back in the 80's.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beatleworld on March 6, 2013 at 3:15pm

Hi Karl, no one has a problem with the first set its the 2nd one which is the forgery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on March 6, 2013 at 3:25pm

Thanks for clearing up my confusion Beatleworld. The second set does indeed have some issues that throw doubt in my mind, mainly the John Lennon and Ringo Starr. The  joined John Lennon seems to be too 'complete' for a circa 1965 set and the 'Starr'isn't typical either. TBH I'm going to have to put this as uncertain in my mind, I wouldn't be surprised if they were genuine despite the apparent faults either though, if they are forgeries they are alarmingly good..

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page