Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 5, 2013 at 12:01pm

They look good to me too. Nice!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on February 5, 2013 at 12:01pm

Thanks for the quick reply!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 5, 2013 at 4:13pm

I am going to need some convincing on these.  I can't see the Ringo, the Lennon is very light and the Harrison really bothers me. but the thing that bothers me the most is something on the Lennon that is normally a dead giveaway for a forgery. Just not sure.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 5, 2013 at 4:18pm

they are probably real, but not a slam dunk

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 5, 2013 at 5:15pm

Interesting. The Lennon is indeed light, but I don't see any problems aside from the "a" in "Starr" looking a bit odd. What don't you like about the George?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 5, 2013 at 5:46pm

Hi Ballroom. I admit that I am sometimes too conservative in my opinions.  what bothers me about the Harrison is the formation of the second g.  I know this is nit-picking but in virtually all of his signatures he was pretty consistent with the counter clockwise motion forming the upper part of the g, similar to Joe Dimaggio.  this one is not like that.  In the Lennon, it is very unusual for him to have his L starting from the left, as he had just finished writing the John.  In most cases, the top of the L actually starts from the right.  The Paul bothers me a little with the relative size of the "aul".  In his older sigs from the early 60's, I dont remember seeing that drastic a difference in size between the a and u, and the "l" appears too big. Again, these are probably nit-picking points but that is why I probably would not want to own it, even if is real. and it very well could be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 5, 2013 at 7:17pm

Hi Terrier. Well, I'm not sure that you can be too conservative when it comes to the Beatles. I know what you mean about the second "G" in "George" and the "L" in "Lennon". While it certainly isn't the norm, I have seen other authentic examples in which those letters appeared the same way. I've also seen the same thing with the "au" in "Paul" but, again, definitely not the norm.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 6, 2013 at 7:53am

thats what makes the Beatles so challenging, because they are so highly forged.  most of the forgeries are rubbish, but I have seen some ones that are very close. its fine to have abnormal signatures, it happens all the time. I just get suspicious when each signature on one document has the exception.  but if I were to have to render an opinion, I would say they are probably real. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 5, 2013 at 8:01pm

The autographs looks great to me, but if you're thinking of buying you need an expert's opinion, and I'm not. Post the link on Roger Epperson's profile, asking if he'd be kind enough to comment, or go to his site, www.rogerepperson.com and get an official online opinion for $15.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on February 6, 2013 at 5:19am

Thanks for all the replies. Beatles autos certainly are a mine field. I'll try Roger.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on February 6, 2013 at 5:35am

Some closer pics of the Lennon

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• lennon_Colour.jpg, 129 KB
• lennon_bw.jpg, 81 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 6, 2013 at 7:51am

the lennon looks good, the only thing that bothers me is the way he started the "L". its from the wrong side. but its probably just one of his "exceptions".  overall the signatures look good, but there is something in each one of them that I presented above, that makes me pause.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page