Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 1, 2013 at 8:31am

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on January 1, 2013 at 11:05am

Wow, I think you're right, Steve. I should have taken more time with this one. I was fooled by the unusual appearance of the Paul and George autographs, and also the slant on the Lennon. I think it's an odd looking but authentic set.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 1, 2013 at 12:28pm

Ballroom, I'm still not convinced.  there are some definite positives, but if you look at well documented Sets of Beatles signatures from the early to mid 60's, how many of them have you seen where every signature has a question mark?  Why does the McCartney look like it was signed on a straight edge?  at best, its a strange set.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on January 1, 2013 at 1:38pm

If you look closely at the George and Ringo, and also the "John" portion of the Lennon signature, there really are no question marks. I think the issues with the Paul signature and "Lennon" portion of John's signature can be attributed to the angle in which they were signed.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Devon Laney on January 1, 2013 at 2:14pm

Guys, I still don't think these are authentic. Just too many question marks on each signature. The Paul looks very slowly written, as does the John. Also the "o" in Ringo flows differently from the "g" as is typically found. The curvature of the "L" in Lennon is also very uncharacteristic. It might be an authentic set, but I would not feel 100% comfortable with it and would always question why there are so many irregularities & inconsistencies. I think Frank and/or Roger should weigh in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xperttexpert on January 1, 2013 at 6:03pm

not real great sigs. but they are real. just my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by anthony Morgan on January 2, 2013 at 3:44am

I was so surprised how many different  opinions there would be about the photo. One thing i did leave out is that the photo was sold through a dealer out of New York Safka And Bereis autographs and they are sending paper work and said that the photo was verified through a Beatles Dealer. One thing i have noticed that most signatures of people change depending on when they signed and how early in there carrier they signed. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 3, 2013 at 1:08pm

Frank Caiazzo, the top Beatles expert, tracked Beatles autographs down to the month in their early years. Safka and Bereis is a good dealer. Anybody can make mistakes, but they're reputable and honest.

I don't think there's a mistake here, though. Every one of these autographs is loaded with genuine characteristics, even though they were not optimally signed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Devon Laney on January 3, 2013 at 9:37pm

Steve is absolutely correct about Safka & Bereis being good dealers, I'm just not 100% confident in these signatures. I'd LOVE to know what Caiazzo or Epperson thinks. If I was paying money for Beatles autographs (and I have) I'd want signatures that not only had Frank's authentication, but that LOOKED like good, typical, recognizable examples of their signatures - not examples where anyone who looked at them said "these look a little strange", even if they are authentic. Just my opinion. At the end of the day, collect what makes you happy & you will take pride in owning :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 3, 2013 at 10:59pm

+1 on your advice, Devon.

I actually like these, because of the photo and their quirkiness. It's not a top-dollar autograph, but I think it's quite desirable. Depending on the size and overall quality of the photo, I think it could bring in the high-teens or so at auction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 4, 2013 at 3:43am

Steve, if Caiazzo authenticates these, some people will definitely pay what you are saying.  I happen to agree with Devon, real or not, there is something strange about every one of these signatures.  That, in itself, bothers me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phillip H. on January 3, 2013 at 12:55pm

I am going to guess real but the McCartney is a little strange.  But I like the way he encircles his face with the tail of his McCartney signature.  Makes me believe it is real.

• ▶ Reply

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