We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Hello all,

I hope these two pics show up!

I would be interested in some opinions of these signatures - Signed on an envelope mid to late 1964.

Cheers, Len

Views: 942

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As they'd say in Liverpool...."lovely....quite lovely..."

someone will probably prove me wrong, but I am not a big fan of these signatures.

Well, I agree with you FWIW.

Hmmmmm what makes you say that?

I'm not a Beatles guy, they just looked equally light and a bit hesitant/scratchy in the John (h), George seems a bit odd like an unnameable flavor slightly off in a soup, Paul's "P" and "L"... And with some odd shapes/volumes/neg spaces. I am looking to learn here. :)

Yeah I can see what you mean. I'm not sold on these signatures either. My initial take was John's looked a bit like Neil's work.

Maybe a lack of conviction in the sigs shows as well. I just answered - did not look at Aspinall etc. re John. Are these placements reasonable?

There does appear to be some noticeable problems with these signatures.
When I first saw them I thought they looked pretty good but when I started to really look at them I had second thoughts. George's signature looks too controlled compared to the others. The P and a in Paul look off as does the R in Ringo. The spacing in John also looks off to me.

They initially looked good to me too. I then noticed some some potential issues as I mentioned, but I see that a few were likely caused by folds in the paper. The majority of it looks quite good. I think Don is is probably correct and that it's likely authentic.

There are a few problems with this set....

Yes it certainly looks that way. Thanks for checking them out.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service