Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ryan on July 10, 2017 at 9:31pm

Unfortunately, its really tough to find a deal on Beatles autographs anymore. Either buy from a reputable dealer (Tracks, Cox, Fab4, Caiazzo) or you will forever wonder whether what you have is legit. I don't trust the PSA/DNA or the new Beckett authenticator (same guy that used to be at PSA/DNA) because of these new techniques. I have been following Beatles autographs for over 20 years so I remember most every set I've seen and can spot most impurities but the days of flipping legit autos is over unless you want to risk dealing with forgeries. You get what you pay for! This forum is priceless for helping collectors and I applaud all the experts that try to keep this hobby clean!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on July 10, 2017 at 9:47pm

I agree with that Ryan!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on July 10, 2017 at 9:48pm

But you would add RACC, right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on July 10, 2017 at 9:49pm

A lot of talented folks here Steve. No doubt about it. I learn something new everyday. Finding matching signatures like this is just awesome stuff.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Johnston on July 11, 2017 at 1:25am

What a fascinating read this morning. Got 35 emails from you to look at regarding this. Very unsettling to know that modern technology can be used to con people. How real though do these look in the flesh? Would they be able to fool one of you guys?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on July 11, 2017 at 2:00am

I think that's a great question "How real do these look in the flesh?" It's much easier to be deceived by an image which can be manipulated in any number of ways.

I'll be honest though; I'm still not convinced that they are auto-pens of any kind. Although the similarities are obvious there are IMO enough subtle differences in the signatures to stand them apart. I've heard mention that such differences can be 'programmed in' and if true then it's a possibility. But what do we actually have here? One of the sets used as a reference actually has a FC COA with it which IMO either makes the auto-pen suggestion less likely......or more scary than I would like to contemplate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Johnston on July 11, 2017 at 2:02am

I suppose the risk is greater when you are buying from Ebay, without seeing, however thanks to this fantastic place I have bought all of my Beatles autographs from the net after posting them here first.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Giuseppe Basile on July 11, 2017 at 1:31am

Because of the timezone only now i can read this long interesting discussion triggered by my post,
i must say that i was expecting that as those signatures (that looked good to me) were auctioned 
on ebay at a very low price so i was curious to know the opinions and reactions from the many
experienced friends of this site, therefore many thanks to you all for having learned a lot.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on July 13, 2017 at 1:24am

I've compared those signatures again and again, both against the pink single sleeve set and the set on the back of the picture and I still think the signatures are different in each case.

Also I think that there's a potential flaw in the way the auto-pen theory was reached. As far as I can tell the set was at first considered to be copied from the pink single cover but then the idea was transposed to the set on the back of the picture.

The similarities are obvious but then again that might often be what you want in terms of deciding on likely authenticity; In this situation the similarities are being presented as a negative...I think the signatures are different enough for it to be totally natural.

Now of course one would need to see the item for yourself to get a better idea, so many ways they could be printed etc. but in form at least the signatures look fine to me.

I would also be interested to know the facts about auto-pen machines and their capabilities, especially as regards programming in of subtle differences signatures to signature. I think I might have heard something similar as regards Michael Jackson auto-pens.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on July 13, 2017 at 10:15am

The signatures are indeed different in each case, as they were slightly altered in an attempt to avoid detection. However, they match to too great a degree for all to be originals. Even the first two "X"s under George's signature in the full set were copied to the card in the OP(!). 

I don't see why finding the pink signed sleeve first should be considered a "flaw." I could have found the full set first followed by the pink sleeve, but that's how it happened to work out. Sometimes the picture becomes clearer after additional effort.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fab432 on July 13, 2017 at 10:40am

Interesting how they made those subtle alterations to try and create a point of difference between the original and the copies. I agree that despite these subtle differences the overall similarities are too close and would not happen in a genuine autograph signing session.

This differs somewhat from my signed card (Pete, John and Paul) that BallroomDays67 found an exact match for with the exception of some missing X's under Paul's signature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 13, 2017 at 12:14pm

+1

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page