ROGER-WATERS-SIGNED-PINK-FLOYD-WALL-PHOTO-WITH-PHOTO-PROOF-LOOK

Seems to me it is good or a good forgery (going mainly on the Rog), so I am seeking other opinions

Not sure why he would sign right over Gilmour except to "thwart" an attempt to get a Gilmour sig later on?......

Thoughts?

Views: 230

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I really can't see it at all.

Here is mine:

Eric

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Let's see if this is better

Not an example I would pursue for several reasons.

Eric

Thanks for the feedback

Care to share the reasons? I am not pursuing, but I saw it as a "value" auto to complete a set.  Aside from the signature in front of Gilmour, the rush, the "funny W" is there reason to believe it is not authentic?

Hello,

Given everything you just listed, why would you pursue it? The top loop of the "R" appears large and unusual, the size of the next letter is very small in comparison to others. I find the photo itself potentially suspect (the pose of Gilmour can be seen as something else) as well as the placement already mentioned. It could be super rushed from the mid-90's or so (some really rushed may have the appearance and formation of the "Waters" here), but as he is not rare at all, or expensive with vigilance (mine was $37 on eBay), as this is not vintage and with this poor contrast, why not just get a better looking example with no "asides"? Assume this is perfectly genuine - is it attractive or evocative? Is this what comes to mind when you imagine "Roger Waters autograph?" What are its strengths? My .02.

Eric

Thanks

I should be more clear. I recently acquired a signed photo of Gilmour, Wright and Mason on Red Square. I wanted a Waters photo to complete the set and frame. Given that it would have the set of signatures, but not all in one place, I decided to go for the photo theme motif. A red Square (Moscow) with a Wall theme looked appealing. I have another Waters photo but on a DSoTM, so not a good "match" for the look I was going for. At first, all I cared was that the auto was legitimate, but, the more I look at it, the less appealing it gets.

Thanks for your comments

Hello,

 Sure. Good luck with your set. There are plenty of black and red hammer-oriented signed photos of Waters to go around I think. I just got a Gilmour for my collection. It is posted on "my page" - can you post a photo of your new trio and other Waters? Always like to see.

Best wishes,

                   Eric

I would also pass on this one. There is a lot of better roger water's autographs out there.

I have a Waters 1996 Relics reissue album cover I am selling if you're interested. Has PSA cert

I don't like this original one at all.

Thank you all, This is an interesting case. I am looking for a b&w picture to make a set, and there are not that many available. This one is a great picture for the aesthetics of the set I am putting together. I was willing to accept a less than perfect signature (the asking price is not all that bad for the picture) but I had my reservations on the authenticity of the signature.

I wish I had posted better guidance as I am now somewhat confused between "do not like- likely not genuine"  vs "likely genuine but horrible signature"  When in doubt, I'll play it safe

Thanks again to all those who have contributed

BH

Hey,

 To me - which you rather sell (or buy or own) -

A) "do not like - likely not genuine" 

or 

B) "likely genuine but horrible signature"

Eric

I don't think it matters - neither is really desirable.

So far, no one likes it for any reason.

When I said "assume" it was for discussion.

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2020   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service