Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Thomas William on September 17, 2019 at 8:53pm

I have to agree. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by just some dude on September 17, 2019 at 9:26pm

Terrible forgery. Laughable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gratefulphish on September 17, 2019 at 10:06pm

Paging Ballroom

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JackGotLucky on September 18, 2019 at 3:17am

Not Authentic in my opinion. Many things about the sig are out of character.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bruce Juice on September 18, 2019 at 9:45am

"Normally contracts and checks tend to be safe bets"   

Not true -- there are tons of fake contracts out there including this Doors one that was offered at a major auction house a year or two ago. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas William on September 18, 2019 at 11:03am

I wouldn’t say tons. In over 30 years I have seen a few bad contracts and checks. Copies and forgeries. In my opinion they tend to be much safer bets than photos, clips especially with contemporary celebrity material.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bruce Juice on September 18, 2019 at 12:01pm

I've also been collecting for over 30 years and have seen more than a few forged contracts -- perhaps 100 in my exemplar file (and those were just the ones I've saved). Maybe less so with checks as they seem to be harder to reproduce and forge. Here's one on eBay right now -- a fake Keith Moon contract. 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/KEITH-MOON-THE-WHO-Mega-Rare-Signed-Contra...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 18, 2019 at 10:24am

It gives a bad first impression and initially looked fake to me too, but in spending some time on it I feel that it deserves a chance as being an odd authentic example.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 18, 2019 at 11:05am

This is why I pulled down my initial observations last night. After looking at some signatures from 1961-1966 and on to 1970 I realized I ought not to comment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 18, 2019 at 11:21am

The wide Os and short, dotted I make it look very unusual.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by just some dude on September 18, 2019 at 11:24am

1. Jim’s sig to me has always had a “scratchy” or “spidery” look.

This contract sig (to me) is “flowery” in addition to the dotted i and formations you noted above, Ballroom.

The second “r” is very atypical as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 18, 2019 at 11:35am

What about the "o" and "n" connection? Is there any precedent for this? It does go up to the "n" at the last but those loops seen strange? The overall thrust seems off to me?

• ▶ Reply

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