Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 2 hours ago

It looks authentic to me. I’m interested to know what the issues are that you’re seeing. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin 1 hour ago

Few Hendrix autographs were signed in felt-tip. I can see how that may make you cautious. It looks good to me, and quite nice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva 1 minute ago

Thanks Steve and Ballroom.

It is getting a little late here so I'll just give a broad outline as to why I have my doubts - without looking at things like individual letter formations.

Looking at the piece as a whole, it looks almost too good to be true. Each signer has signed very clearly in their own individual spaces and each has added their own inscription. The Hendrix is a fairly common one but I think the Mitch is unique and I don't think Noel often included personalized inscriptions (normally just "Cheers" or "Love").

The overall layout of Jimi's autograph looks unusual. I don't think his inscriptions are normally as large as his name or overlap the name as this one does. It may just be my eyes but I wonder if the inscription actually overlaps the name rather than the other way around, as if it had been added later. The "Jimi" and the "Hendrix" are really cramped together, for no apparent reason and in a way I don't recall seeing elsewhere. It is also unusual to see the "J" extending over the surname to this extent and the "i" of "Jimi" crossing the "J". The baseline of the both names also looks unusually straight and most of the letters also seem to be at an unusually uniform angle. Finally, I don't see much of a logical flow from the crossing of the "J" to the "imi".

The Noel autograph is unusual too, most particularly the use of the capital "N" and the way this is connected to the "oel". I have seen at least one RR example that is similar but it is highly unusual. The separation of the "ing" in the surname is also unusual I believe.

The Mitch seems the most typical of the three but it looks rather deliberately/stiffly written and the "M" looks unusually "spacey* to me.     

I can get into more detailed points later but does anyone have any immediate thoughts on my observations so far, preferably with illustrative examples? I would hasten to add that my doubts about this set of autographs are not based on any one particular observation but rather on the number of observations taken as a whole. 

• ▶ Reply