Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 5, 2024 at 11:21am

Not signed by the boys IMO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Saunders on March 5, 2024 at 11:50am

It looks oddly correct for me. I like it. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on March 5, 2024 at 11:52am

I like it too. It’s deceiving at first because of how awkwardly Paul signed the first name portion of his signature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fab432 on March 5, 2024 at 12:03pm

That was my first reaction as well.  I was leaning towards not genuine then I settled on probably rushed. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trazom1 on March 5, 2024 at 12:07pm

Autographs look genuine

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bruce Juice on March 5, 2024 at 1:49pm

From Omega's Website: Provenance: A family member of the vendor worked for Rediffusion and was present during filming for TV special 'Around The Beatles' on 28th April 1964. As well as taking photographs of the band (twelve 4x6" and one 6.5 x 8.5" black and white prints of those photos included in the lot) they obtained the signatures on this LP on the day. The signed LP came to the vendor on their 21st birthday. Authenticated by Roger Epperson. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on March 5, 2024 at 10:08pm

Loose as a goose but nicely legible. I bow to higher authorities as to authenticity but being slightly atypical is usually a good sign and the studio photos add even more positive evidence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on March 6, 2024 at 6:21pm

Looks OK...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james allen on March 6, 2024 at 11:55pm

the paul does look odd, but I would go for genuine

• ▶ Reply