Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 18, 2019 at 11:39am

Also, didn't they hire new management in June of '67, and not these people?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 18, 2019 at 11:42am

The loop does look odd as part of what appears to be a second deliberately wider O than you usually see.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JackGotLucky on September 18, 2019 at 2:28pm

The first pic is the item in question and the second pic is one of Jim's yearbook sigs. It's the closest thing I found in my exemplars where the "ON" portion is somewhat similar. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by just some dude on September 18, 2019 at 2:31pm

And still the “spidery or scratchy” feel with the known authentic. I dont know how else to verbalize that quality, lol

Despite the atypical formations already pointed out, the OP just doesnt look/feel like a typical JM sig, IMO

I wouldnt feel comfortable paying typical JM dollars for what is (at best) a very atypical sig. 

Final thoughts: A hard pass from me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JackGotLucky on September 18, 2019 at 2:44pm

I agree, as I just can't convince myself it's authentic after seeing this for the first time last week. It just doesn't  have that natural effortless "sloppiness" to it that you see in all of Jim's sigs. If you dissect it letter by letter, yeah I can see some similarity to known authentic sigs in some of the letters. Too much doubt already to pay $10k+ when you should just simply opt to buy a known example.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 18, 2019 at 4:36pm

I’m definitely with you on the price. For $10K, I would want a typical, clearly authentic example. Most of the authentic contracts we’ve seen have much nicer signatures. We did see an SP with a fairly unusual signature sell for $26K. I certainly wasn’t expecting it to sell for anywhere near that price.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JackGotLucky on September 18, 2019 at 2:34pm

Here you can see the "ON" 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 18, 2019 at 2:37pm

I saw that last night I believe on PSA's page. It appears the OP is odd and perhaps more smooth and "scratchy".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 18, 2019 at 3:02pm

Not PSA's page - it was a signature study right here at our site :) That is where the earlier yearbook sigs etc I saw were.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JackGotLucky on September 18, 2019 at 2:51pm

Here is the closest comparison to the "ORR" portion I could find.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 18, 2019 at 4:56pm

Does anyone see anything unusual about the contract content or any other aspect of the presentation for April 1967?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gratefulphish on September 18, 2019 at 5:33pm

I find the contract itself odd for a number of reasons. First, it does not even specify who is actually allegedly being represented.  Based on the signature block, it would only technically have bound Jim Morrison, not the other band members, or the band itself, as it is not signed by "The Doors," by Jim Morrison in some stated representative capacity.  The fact that it is not countersigned is another issue.  If someone actually got Jim Morrison to sign this, then they would have signed immediately to make it binding.  It is not a complete contract otherwise.  The form itself looks like a standard pre-printed form of which many exist in all areas of the law.  It would not be that hard to locate an old blank.  I personally find the whole thing fishy, without a detailed explanation of the purported management agreement and its background.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page