PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS, NOT BLOGS.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST, THANKS.

Here is a set of cut signatures (on newspaper) from 1963.  They look good to me. The clarity is a bit off as they are behind glass. Any other thoughts?

Views: 139

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

IMO, these look okay.

They do look good. Great examples of 1962 or early 1963 signatures.

Fake - Same forger of this set :

BEE3269F-3155-4C93-968D-D0F6121AB6D6.jpeg

Interesting but I don’t think the forger from the set you posted (and discussed in another posting) signed these signatures. I think there are quite a few differences in form and flow to see they are not signed by the same hand. The forged / fake signatures look as if they were signed slowly trying to get the form correct. They lack the natural flow of an autograph.  

It’s not interesting to me they are clearly amateurish fakes 

Same forger who did all these in pencil they are tracing them:

D069EF8D-3E21-457A-A1A0-FC228B60FEE1.jpeg

5865C68E-C243-4A39-B864-2B03858E50C0.jpeg

FB4F8208-C764-4A5E-97F6-B449C7C8FED4.jpeg

Well, if you're going to forge Beatles signatures, focusing on early signatures that aren't well known might be lucrative. Clearly, if fakes, these need more research.

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2020   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service