Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on July 10, 2017 at 5:09pm

It's quite possible, Ballroom. It'll take more study, but those flow like they're naturally signed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on July 10, 2017 at 5:12pm

That's a solid set on the back of a photo, and from a reputable seller. It was signed on 1/20/64. That's the same date flynny gave as provenance for the set in the OP.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on July 10, 2017 at 5:12pm

there are some letter formations that are identical, so there is definitely something here.  Its like someone matched first names with last names to vary the signature.  I'm not smart enough to figure how, but there is definitely something here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fab432 on July 10, 2017 at 6:45pm

I've been following this discussion with great interest and must admit that I did not like the John and George in the title post. Not sure why but something wasn't right. When Ballroom posted the sigs on the pink sleeve I didn't like that one either. I was actually waiting for the original to show up that was used to make the copies. And then there it was. The John and George on the back of the photo have everything that the other two sets do not have. Looking at these copies and the original source set brings me back to my set with the John, Paul and Pete set we compared to an identical set minus the X's under Paul's signature. I wonder if there are more copies of that set out in the market. It's troubling that by themselves these signatures are good enough to fool most people including leading authenticators. It's only when compared side by side with the other copies does more of the story get told. It would seem that someone has a process perhaps a modern day auto pen that is passing off machined copies as hand signed originals. We've seen two different sets where the copy is as good as the original anymore out there?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 10, 2017 at 7:26pm

One wonders about "new" combinations of first and last name samples put together from authentic different same-period examples. One can easily imagine a computer program that would suggest what inscriptions were employed where and when...this is very dangerous stuff. But I might also imagine a program that could recognize these shapes and find matches in a database with first and last name separate and searchable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 10, 2017 at 7:45pm

A quick overlay with the set posted after the pink. It appears to me a cause for concern. Click for full image:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 10, 2017 at 7:55pm

I'm looking at "little" things - the "oh" in John, the "arrison"...these have been adjusted/altered even for slant and obviously placement, but the "i" in Harrison, that "n", the end of "Lennon" and how that "o" leans back - seemingly identical...

Sorry - did not realize I cut off the end of the sigs in my quick overlay.

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on July 10, 2017 at 7:55pm

Nicely done. I did think the N in John looked a bit unusual. As it turns out, it originally was connected to the L.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 10, 2017 at 8:12pm

To Ballroom,

My next question would be this: Suppose you did not have the benefit of the other (original) set. What else would you be looking at? 

To others: Suppose you did not have the benefit of the other (original) set. What would you be looking at? That "n" in Lennon like Ballroom? What a superb eye he has! See his comments on that "n". What else can one use to fight this w/o the benefit of the original? Does the "e" at the end of George look odd? Anything else?

It would be good to see such signatures in hand to help give some answers to this question - things that might have to do with how it was made...and yes, one wonders how many "sets" have been cobbled together in a similar manner. (Not hand-signed forgeries, but machine made stuff).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on July 10, 2017 at 8:54pm

It's hard to tell from a pic without the benefit of a matching set. I've thought that a duplicate set was a reprint and it turned out to be the original. I just happened to find the signed sleeve, which I thought was the original, in my exemplar file.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on July 10, 2017 at 8:13pm

You guys are so good. I'm amazed by it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on July 10, 2017 at 8:59pm

Rick, when you mostly focus a few names, like the Beatles, Hendrix, Doors, Mantle, Michael Jackson, etc., you can get pretty good at them.

Just like you're the go-to guy for Pat Tillman. I've watched you here on Tillman, and there's no one I trust more than you...anywhere. Every call you make makes sense.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page