Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jamal Crawford on May 25, 2014 at 9:12am

No one?  I know this is super rare and sought after and i took some great pix for you guys.  Your comments would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on May 25, 2014 at 10:24am

Unfortunately, the signature doesn't look authentic to me. Also, a friend of mine emailed me about this and we both have doubts that a studio document such as this would require a signature.

Permalink Reply by Jamal Crawford on May 25, 2014 at 10:58am

Those were my exact thoughts when i was considering purchasing this.  "Why would they bother Jim to sign something so dumb..."  I looked into it and apparently they thought they were done with the album before they went on tour so this was a last second thing to add/rerecord some stuff.  So they billed it out directly to Jim so they can get in and finish quickly (not have to go through the company who would usually pay for this).  All the dates match and i did have it inspected by some "pro's" and they told me it's real.   Was also purchased from a high end store and came with their "certificate of authentication" but that doesn't really mean anything.  They did have 50,000+ positive feedback on eBay as well, but i purchased it in store - 0 negative feedback for selling anything unauthentic, only negatives were shipping and communication complaints.

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on May 25, 2014 at 11:27am

This would have been the “Waiting For the Sun” sessions, which were completed in late May. The dates on the document are 3/26 and 3/28. The Doors were in New York on 3/27 and were back in the studio to continue recording the album in early April. Also, this is an advance against royalties. The money was paid to Jim.

Permalink Reply by Jamal Crawford on May 25, 2014 at 11:36am

I'm missing something here, do I have it all backwards?  Please explain, clearly you know you're Jim history better than I.

For the record, all the info I have posted is from my research, the only thing i had inspected was the signature.

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on May 25, 2014 at 11:55am

I’m actually not questioning the document itself. I’m only questioning the signature. I’ve compared it to a number of exemplars and in my opinion it has substantial inconsistencies.

Permalink Reply by Jamal Crawford on May 25, 2014 at 12:16pm

I completely misunderstood you the first time, I see what your saying now.  I did have this checked out at 2-3 places that seemed legitimate but I was maybe 15 at the time?  I looked did a google image comparison and looks very similar to me, I don't have a trained eye when it comes to this but I am a graphic artist, and i feel I have a good eye for detail.  Have you seen the super sized image of the signature in my possession?  You can see that the pen was dry or running out of ink and you can make out the imprint where the pen didn't leave ink (very noticeable on the "S").  It's much easier to see in person but i feel that image allows you to kind of see it.

Could you specify what inconsistencies you see?

High Resolution close-up of the signature: http://i.imgur.com/AXHlR3b.jpg

Permalink Reply by Jamal Crawford on May 25, 2014 at 12:18pm

Also if you could link me what you are comparing it to that would be great!  Unless you are comparing to your own which would be great too :)

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on May 25, 2014 at 12:57pm

The overall appearance of the signature looks off to me, including the shape of the “M” and the first “R”, the first “R”s height relative to the “O”, and the formation and shape of the second “O”.

Permalink Reply by Jamal Crawford on May 25, 2014 at 1:43pm

That's what you are basing it off?  I am no expert, I don't know if you are but you certainly have your info straight on Jim.  When it comes to the signature ive seen several with close to exact shaped M's and sloppy O's and R's.  This is only speculation but I would imagine a factor that came into Jim's signature was his state of mind.  Whether he was wondering off in his own world or sloppy/aggressively drunk or if he was actually sober.  I know I have certainly been in those mind sets many times and I can assure you my signature would not look the same.  We can only speculate on that but besides that, i don't think much thought went into this signature considering what it was to him at the time.  If anything I thought the S looked weird but I think that is from the pen dying/drying out.  I have seen many check signatures of his as well, I would think that he would think the way his signature looked on a check would be more important than this stupid document he had to sign (in his mind).  To me its the document that finished one of my all time favorite albums by the man I learned so much from at such a young age.

Permalink Reply by Jamal Crawford on May 25, 2014 at 1:49pm

Looking at it closely again it looks like the pen completely died on the S and he continued from the end of the S to form that second O which he usually does by connecting them at the top from the bottom of his spiral S. (if you can even call that an S, lol)

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on May 25, 2014 at 2:11pm

You asked for opinions and that is my opinion. If you feel comfortable with the signature and believe that it compares favorably to authentic examples that you've seen, then enjoy it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page