We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Any opinions on this? It is supposed to be from July/Aug 1963 and there is supposed to be some photographic evidence of the signing. Seems almost too good to be true - very clean record, same or similar pen/ink. I haven't seen the photo.

Views: 2121

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

it looks like it was signed last week

looks good. just me and my opinion.

I've never seen a George Harrison signature that looks like that. Do you have one that you can post? 

here are two copies of examples I came across

The "s", "o" and "n" are separated, but to me it doesn't appear similar to the other example. Also, look how slowly the other one is written. The others are as well, but it's most noticeable with the George autograph. 

are you aware how many times the signed? and how they changed and evolved?

you must become one with the signature.

do any of the sigs. resemble. it's all the the same writing implement. can't fake that!

i only care and study  beatles sigs, it is my passion, for 15 yrs. it is like a tone def person that takes singing lessons, not gonna happen. either you see it or you don't.  but it is your opinion. just like the stones auto i posted a couple of weeks ago.

Yes, but I've never seen one that looks like that from any year, nor have I seen an authentic one that looks slowly drawn.

ok, i do respect your opinion. i have not written a book, or have credability, only i have sent many beatles auto's that have been shot down by several readers on auto graph mag. only to be vidicated by mister caiazzo..

RSS

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service