Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 27, 2013 at 6:39pm

1965.

Keep in mind that the athletes' signatures are signed around the perimeter of the Beatles signatures, giving the appearance that they were signed afterwards. Are those fakes? If so, why are they even there? If not, are those vintage signatures as well? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spaceman on September 27, 2013 at 6:48pm

I found the new listing on eBay. What a pity there is no provenance. The sports autographs are very collectable with out the Beatles. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 27, 2013 at 7:42pm

Does PSA still have items removed from eBay that are deemed "likely not authentic" through their Quick Opinion service?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spaceman on September 27, 2013 at 7:50pm

Wasn't a COA from Tracks mentioned. I do not know about PSA? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FB on September 27, 2013 at 8:10pm

PSA wrote that they were not likely genuine through their quick opinion authenticity. Can we get Roger Epperson's two cents?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on September 28, 2013 at 3:47am

I have my doubts also, the pen pressure sure does look similar and the last n in lennon is so similar to the ending of McCartney and last n in Harrison (upside down).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on September 28, 2013 at 5:26am

These are not McCartney Beatles signatures...look at the" lenn" in Lennon...and then look at the "artn" in McCartney...to me..they both come to a point...then the letter "n" both look the same...the last letter"n"in Lennon ...and the "ey" in McCartney look to have the same slant...see what I mean?

I don't like them...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 28, 2013 at 9:06am

If the Beatles signatures are fakes, what is the scenario under which they were forged?

Harry Gregg left Manchester United in 1967. Does anyone have a problem with the Manchester United signatures? Are they not from that period? Considering the placement of those signatures, does anyone feel that they could have been signed prior to the Beatles signatures?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on September 28, 2013 at 10:15am

the Best and Gregg signatures are close to others, if you do a search on them. but the sadler seems way off. I really cant figure this item out.  but when I just look at the beatles signatures by themselves, and I believe that if we saw these three on a separate item, we would all be questioning them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 28, 2013 at 5:59pm

That's true. After spending some more time looking at both sets of signatures, I'm having doubts about them. It's a very strange set, for sure. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spaceman on September 28, 2013 at 7:01pm

My only doubting issue would be " why did Ringo sign on the front of the postcard". Did Ringo sign at a later date and because the back was filled up, signed on the front. And would the owner of the post card have actually glued over Ringo. They could have displayed it in a two way plastic envelope. A good discussion point.    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 28, 2013 at 7:34pm

Why indeed is the Ringo on the front, and why is it almost completely faded? Why is there substantial fading to portions of the Beatles autographs? Why forge the MU autographs after forging the Beatles autographs?  

There's also damage to the front as though it was removed from a scrapbook.

• ▶ Reply

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