Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on November 13, 2012 at 9:32am

Looks good...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hitch1010 on November 13, 2012 at 3:55pm

What a beginner's mistake.  I don't study Harrison and I knew it was real immediately.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Frost on November 13, 2012 at 4:17pm

That pretty funny, a beginner's mistake after 28 years. I am glad that you are quite the autograph expert Mr. Hitch. Can I ask you what is your expertise, and how long you have be authenticating and studying handwriting and autographs. I am sure we all may be able to learn a lot from you and your keen eye.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 13, 2012 at 5:35pm

Speaking of being an old-timer, Mike, Roger told me that the Harrison is the style that Joe Long tried to copy in his forgeries. Could that be what's unsettling to you?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Fox on November 13, 2012 at 6:01pm

to be honest, its irrelevant how long you have been doing a job, its how good you are at doing the job that matters, especially in this hobby.

there could be someone thats been doing it 3 years and have better knowledge than you it depends on how they apply themselves.

this is a text book example on my beliefs that specialist authenticators are the way forward as their coas have more credibility. its impossible to have someone be able to be a specialist in every signature known to man, thus, i dont see why third party authenticators feel the need to take peoples money to authenticate items on which they have no clue about.

to me this autograph seemed genuine from first glance and the reasons given for saying its not authentic on the PAAS letter is ridiculous.

there something similar happening in the uk, however this third party authenticators believe certain autographs are genuine to which we still await their announcement.

Common sense would now be to authenticate what you can hand on heart say you know and swear by it, not claim to have expertise in areas you are lacking or not come across. there is no room for mistakes in authenticity as reputations and businesses are on the line that put roofs over heads.(better be safe than sorry, in this case you are sorry and its bitten you on the backside).

IMO you should have referred this gentleman elsewhere. I really do not see how you can justify the autograph to be shown as not authentic unless it was a print .

However, i am glad to see you have admitted you have made a mistake and been professional with the way you have instantly offered a refund without hesitation, but my point is, this mistake shouldnt have been made in the first place. How many more items like this has it happened to? it really isnt fair on the consumers/customers who are not educated and not knowledgeable . Credibility is key and if i was one of your customers and saw this topic on this forum, id stay clear as it would seem you have not got a clue (not saying you havent just raising a point) and i wouldnt want to waste money on your authentication service if you cannot get it right the first time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Frost on November 14, 2012 at 12:46am

 

    I would first like to begin with my response e-mail dated 10/11/2011 to xperttexpert , in regards to his objections with the P.A.A.S. Letters of Examination's on the items submitted for authentication.

---

From: SPECIALAGENT711@aol.com
To: xperttexpert@gmail.com
Sent: 10/11/2011 6:52:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Re: l.o.a.'s for beatles auto.'s

 

I am sorry with the results, I had found issues with many of the signatures you have submitted for examination especially the 2 George Harrison signed albums. I also found the Beatles signed album page not to be authentic. I then forwarded all the scans to 2 Beatles experts that we use as trusted advisers with P.A.A.S., Both had the same exact opinions that the signatures were not authentic.

If Roger has said the album page was authentic, could you please send me any reference or e-mail saying that he would authenticate the signatures. All the signatures also received a thumbs down from Alexander in Germany. Once again we are sorry but we have done a a full examination of all the signatures and have found major inconsistence with the autographs. 

Thank you

Michael Frost

P.A.A.S.

954 450-4283

 

In a message dated 10/11/2011 5:55:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, xperttexpert@gmail.com writes:

hi, got the auto.s back andto say the least i am shocked. other than the lennon the others were quite cut and dried. the set had already been authenticated as real by beatles marketplace, nigel lemon, and roger epperson looked at in person and said it was real, the guy i bought it from bob emerson lives in houston.  im going to send scans to andrew in germany. somethings not right. i know all these are real except the lennon, but if ya'll think i'ts fake, then its pbrobably realalso. this isn't 1995 anymore where people don't have the means to study beatles autographs with example after example just like you. i don't get it there is more to the story.

I would also like to post a few 100% authentic George Harrison autograph exemplars.

 

 

 

 

And include this in- person rushed 1979 exemplar. About the same time the George Harrison in question was signed.

  

I will now ask anybody that is interested including the experts to please double click the George Harrison autograph that is in question on the top of the post. This will enhance the image and increase the image size by approximately 3 X. During most of our autograph examinations we work with the imaged increased by 4 to 8 times the size.  Please try to compare the signature in question to the guaranteed 100% authentic exemplars I have provided or you may use any George Harrison signature you know is authentic from 1977 - 1981.  Please examine and compare the sizes, shapes,and angles of the letters. Then examine the height and length of the signatures. Please also notice the speed and the natural flow of the signatures.

  If possible can focus especially on the size and shapes of the bottom loop on the "G" in George. Then review were and how the G meets the E in George..You should notice a major problem here with the natural flow of the G into the E but not every single autograph is exact so we will move on. I was also uncomfortable with the connection or bridge between the O and E in George. In this case once again it is not the typical George Harrison signature from this time frame. The two RR's in Harrison were always a main focus place and the two RR's in this case seem a little slow, drawn and calculated to my eye. The sizes and shapes do not match the typical characteristics of most in person rushed Harrison autographs. The S in Harrison is what really troubled me it is something I was not able to locate or understand, It is almost like a figure 8, and to find George doing this in the late 70's would be very very rare. I have seen something very similar but it was used and not commonly by George during the 60's and it was used in his 1st R in Harrison not in the "S" in this manor.

George Harrison did not often personalize but when he did it would be very rare to find the "O" in To this close to the end of the cross of the "T" nor can you find many O's this high up to the "T" commonly  the "O" in To is much lower and rounded. The last issue I had with the examination of this George Harrison signature were the many ink blots throughout this autograph. I understand George Harrison was shy and not a big fan of crowds nor signing autographs. When he did sign autographs in-person he was a fast signer and he usually has a fast even flow to his signature. He would rarely even look at the object he would sign.  This signature once again is to calculated  with far to many starts and stops in the ink, the ink blots on this autograph seemed like a little much. When enlarged it creates a blot of ink at the beginning and ending of many letters in the signature.  These start/stop points are not common in a regular signature. When a forger replicates a signature the eye movement shifts back and forth from the original text to the forged document. The eye movement, causes the pen to lift from the paper leaving spaces or gaps between the letters of the signature. The occasional starts and stops of the forger’s pen leave blots or blunts in the forged signature. This ink spots normally are signs of lifts with the pen from the paper and then starting writing again  The pen is held on the paper so long, causing the ink to wet the paper and leave these spots seen when the signature is enlarged.

These were my main issues with the signature examination and the reason P.A.A.S. would not issue a Letter of Authenticity.

I am sorry for the length of this explanation but it has taken me 2 days to put it all together. I am very good at authenticating and investigating but writing and spelling as you know are not my strong points.

The next thing I looked at and this should not be the final deciding factor in any authentication, was the other items submitted. There were 6 items and 5 were already examined with multiple problems found in each of the signatures. This factor many times will set off a red flag and make me work even harder then I normally do on an examination.

Last factor and maybe the biggest problem in this case was the item that was signed."The Menu" fast food receipt from Disneyland. My first impression was that this item looked, felt and smelled much older then the late 1970's in which I was told the autograph was signed. I then looked at the ink and printing on the flip side and that struck me as maybe older the mid to early 1970's. I started to do some additional research and investigation work and came to the conclusion that the prices seemed very low for Disneyland in the late 1970's. After looking at hours of food and drink prices and vintage menu's from Disneyland I was able to pin point that the prices for the food and drinks matched up almost spot on with Disneyland menu prices from 1959-1961. This really gave me a problem with the many inconsistencies I already documented in my examination. Why would Dana be running around Disneyland in the late 1970's with a 1960 food menu???

I am not saying that it could not have happened but I was not going to put my name and reputation on this autograph. I know that everyone that read the discussion agreed with Frank Caiazzo's opinion and I know that the signature at first and by scan does look authentic. I respect Frank and his opinion, honesty and hard work very much.  I think he may have made a mistake on this George Harrison authentication. I really hope that all of the quotes and opinions of this signature and my authentication work were not based upon any hatred of lack of trust in P.A.A.S. or me as an authenticator.

I am still willing to grant a full refund if I have made a mistake in judgement or in my examination of this autograph. Thank you for all your time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on November 14, 2012 at 4:24am

Mike, thank you for taking the time to explain your thought process behind your concerns about the Harrison autograph.  I have been studying Beatles autographs for 20 years, and the variations in Harrison alone are overwhelming.  I am not sure how large your file of Harrison exemplars is, but I would continue to collect examples with all his variations.  Below is an example from 1984, with the "s" that you accurately represented as relatively rare in his post-60's signatures.  But it does happen.  While I understand the points you are making, it seems like a trees/forest situation.  when you stand back and look at the flow, letter formation, speed etc of the signature, it just looks and feels right.  then you can look at other details, one of the important ones for me is the "rg" formation. In the signature in question, it is right on.  most forgers miss it. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 14, 2012 at 4:36am

What really caught my attention was Mike's point about the prices on the food ticket. If he's right, that they're 1960s prices, that's a mystery that needs to be solved. But if the Harrison is a forgery, I can't imagine there being a better one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on November 14, 2012 at 4:46am

if you were that talented a forger, why would you waste it on the back of an old menu? I think the signature speaks for itself.  I would be more concerned if they were 2010 prices.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 14, 2012 at 5:19am

The menu (or food ticket) could have been from a leftover stock used for notes, etc., that an employee grabbed to have signed. Celebs are usually shielded from the public at Disneyland, so it's likely that it was signed for an employee. But it is a question.

It only would take a forger that good a couple seconds to sign something, so he wouldn't be wasting time. Plus he wouldn't be losing a lot of money on bad attempts.

Still...I'd be shocked if it was forged.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xperttexpert on November 14, 2012 at 7:08am

steve, i obtained this directly  from dana. this is the story, it is not 1960's prices. dana was a waitress at this dineyland fast food establishment in the spring of 1977, they were closing up for the night and a gentleman, a young women and another man walked in and dana told them "sorry we ar closed". one of the cooks looked out and told dana , "do you know who that is". dana replied" i don't care who it is we are closed". the cook replied , "that is george harrison!" being embarrassed not recognizing him,dana replied to george "i am so sorry and they staid open late", dana waited on him, and for eveyones interest george ate hot dogs, french fries and coca cola. maybe that is why it does not look rushed?!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on November 14, 2012 at 11:53am

Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I still feel that the autograph in question is clearly authentic. I don't see any problem with the "G" and "E" in "George." I've seen the loop formed in a similar way, and the two letters just happen to intersect in a way that makes it a bit difficult to see the transition from one to the other. I also don't see a problem with the two "R"s, which appear quickly drawn to me. The "figure 8 'S'" compares nicely with the example above, and I've seen it more narrow at the bottom like in the autograph in question. The signature appears to me to have an even flow, with ink blots having been caused by a problem with the pen's ink flow. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 12
• Next ›
• Page