Is this PSA Paul McCartney signed album legit?

I know there has been a lot of discussion about PSA/DNA possibly being "lenient" with some of the items submitted by its bigger clients.

So I was wondering if this Sir Paul signed album might be an example of PSA helping out a friend. It was recently passed by PSA on Dec. 21, 2015 for eBay seller autographs-for-sale out of Cave Creek, Arizona. I think they do a lot of business with PSA.

But is this an authentic Paul McCartney autograph that is being offered for $2500?

There are pics below, and here is a link:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/272090023743?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2...

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

image.png, 1.1 MB
image.png, 1.7 MB
image.png, 1.9 MB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James on December 31, 2015 at 9:20am

Thanks for the information, Nate. That clears things up for sure. As Terrier noted, it is an atypical Paul autograph. Therefore, a signature like that one can cause some confusion.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on December 31, 2015 at 2:53pm

Nate may I ask you a question? Did you ask him to sign inside the White Album or did he just open it up and sign inside? Where did he sign on the Pepper on front or inside?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on January 1, 2016 at 12:20am

Probably worth clarifying that although I was the possessor of this and the aforementioned Sgt Peppers, I was not the obtainer, as such I am unable to answer your question with certainty. However I can say the Peppers was also signed in the gatefold and that it is highly unlikely the obtainer would have asked for a specific autograph placement (it also seems quite common for white albums to be signed above respective photos in the gatefold).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on January 1, 2016 at 3:55am

Was the Pepper dated as well?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on January 1, 2016 at 4:48am

Nope. Here's a link to the piece (recently sold through RR): http://www.rrauction.com/PastAuctionItem/3348124

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on January 1, 2016 at 5:48am

Interesting, not doubting the authenticity. A little interesting he dated the one and not the other though. Thanks for the info.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by automan on December 31, 2015 at 12:38am

looks good

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on December 31, 2015 at 6:00am

I saw this somewhere else and spent some time looking at it. while the overall signature is non-typical (I have never seen one like this), it is likely authentic.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on December 31, 2015 at 6:07am

And Im throwing out the old "wouldn't want it in my collection". And for the nitpickers,thats for the money!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on December 31, 2015 at 9:25am

That's a good point, Ian. Even though it may be authentic, is it one that a person would want in their collection. It might not be an easy sell down the road when you're ready to part with it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on December 31, 2015 at 9:28am

its a personal choice. because it is likely authentic, that is good enough for many collectors no matter what it looks like. so at half the price it would have been a bargain to those people. I would prefer one that is more typical.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on December 31, 2015 at 9:32am

I find the market for McC signatures very interesting. there are some Sgt Pepper and White albums with Caiazzo certs that have been listed around 2500 or BO and they have been sitting there for what seems like years. because most of these listings are BIN, its difficult to truly establish what the market is willing to pay for McC signatures.