to my untrained eye i cant see a difference between the two are we saying one is fake one is correct
Yes, the Susan one is real and is in a copy of 'In his Own Write' I believe.
With the second one the faker has used the real one to 'copy' the style and writing etc.
I don't like the John lennon. Never seen a signed self portrait like this. He usually sketches these with glasses.
The authentication of Beatles Autographs (single and together) is a very murky area, at least to me. As previously stated, "if Tracks (or Frank) say that a set isn't genuine then it is dead," raises many questions. Collectors are NOT experts but we all have opinions. We as collectors hope that the opinions of these experts are much better than ours. Are they always right? No one is 100% in anything. What happens when a genuine item is called fake by an expert (see above)? The owner of that (real) item would be correct to be furious. What is the next step? Where are the checks and balances at the highest levels? We really need to have some kind of appeals system for an autograph deemed questionable by the highest regarded opinions. Does any body have thoughts on this concept?
It always makes perfect sense to buy the item with no questions. The real problem comes up when a witnessed item is deemed "inauthentic." Who does the person with all the righteous indignation in the world go to?
Both appear fake.
The first appears to be 'signed' in the 70's......
But Lennon pretty much wasn't putting 'kisses" (xxx) under his sig at that point.
The long loops of the G in George signature makes me think that may be a Neil Aspinall set. The very long top of the J in John in that full set pic is also typical Aspinall.