How did you see it, though, and not still have a copy of it?
Regarding authenticity, I think that it probably isn't real. There are characteristics inconsistent with what I have learned to look for in Lennon autographs. But I feel that this autograph needs to be seen in person, because it's about 80%-plus right. Any forgery that makes you think hard is a great one, because every autograph is a snowflake, unique.
I hope that you do indeed believe you saw an Epperson LOA, but how many years ago did this happen? t it something you saw on internet or held in your hand and studied? Even if it was from Epperson, are you sure it was for this Lennon piece? These Epperson LOAs all resemble each other
And oh yeah, how good is your memory?
you can probably pay him some fee to go through past records and verify if story is true or not- go to his web site an email him
When one makes such obviously unsupported conclusions about coxx et al.,
it tends to make people think about it being an intentional attempt to provoke -reminiscent of the anl days.
As for getting consensus on authenticity, it generally goes like this. An excellent signed piece with great provenance will have every authenticator agree on its authenticity. Then you have weaker pieces, where signatures aren't so clear, provenance isn't so good. This is where you see disagreement among experts. And finally there are the obvious fakes that all experts agree on. Your piece falls in the "weaker" pieces section hence the difference of opinion.
Perry Cox is a good friend of Frank Caiazzo's and I believe he gets Frank's opinion on a lot of his Beatles. That's a great combination of experts.
You've got that right...
I use Nigel Lemon at Beatlesmarketplace. Trust his opinion everytime.