I dont like the Paul or the John
I agree about the Paul and John, and I also don't like the George. The Ringo does look authentic to me.
So we have a Ringo 1995, a John 1975, i think a Paul early 1970s and a George? I think they are a clever fake.
I think the Paul is more like an attempt at a mid-sixties signature. it looks slowly written, and just does not look right.
I like the Ringo...
ringo is good, the others not. just my opinion.
the Ringo does look good,the paul and george do not in my opinion.
i have to say these signatures all good to me..the only odd fact is that they are from a lot of different time periods. looks like a lot of leg work and i would be damned if i let it go for 8 thousand dollars!
It appears you were the only one who had this one spot on; impressive. Congrats, Darren!
The "O" in "John" appears to have been written clockwise instead of counterclockwise, and doesn't continue into the "H". Are there any other examples in which those two things occur?
Darren -- you bring up the BEST POINT yet. On an album, all bands (that disbanded before 1971) are EXTREMELY RARE. Especially a band like The Beatles, which didn't tour.
Therefore, if someone did the "leg work" and Bealtes albums can get $40,000 or more, why this price?
That alone, makes me call BS. As for the look of the signatures, only the Lennon looks bad to me. All others look excellent.