It's not okay to have an opinion? That's one person's opinion, I suppose.
Were adverse opinions meant to dissuade potential bidders? Maybe. But that would serve people right - why should someone with years of knowledge hand over that knowledge to someone with less knowledge use it against the person with more knowledge?
The winning bidder (Tracks, apparently) didn't give two craps about what anyone here said. When you have confidence in your judgment, you don't need to.
It was not presented as an opinion. People pretended to have knowledge and called them "pattern forgeries" (laughable).
If you have no idea what your talking about its better to say nothing at all then typing that kind of BS.
Cornelis, name an individual or entity who has not made an error. If you think Tracks can't make a mistake (I don't say here) you'd be wrong.
Yes, but my main points concerned the arguments given: “they look too much alike”, “people didn’t walk around with albums”. These are unnecessary, and incorrect assumptions.
And let’s get back to the original question. These are beautiful genuine examples. You don’t need proof from Tracks to see that. But the confidence with which these were called fake, pattern fakes etc. annoys me (as you might have noticed). It’s of course OK to have an opinion, but this was more or less a statement. For another questionable set I could have lived with that, but not for these ones which are beyond doubt.
You make good points, which gives support to the idea that anyone willing to pay $6,000 or so felt they had a chance to win the lot, and chances of winning increase when there is less competition.
What a weird comment Steve. Because both Servi (who I don't know) and I were right - we're the same?
Just admit defeat Napoleon
Indeed. It was enough last night Servi. Repetitive and unnecessarily antagonistic.
OK, thanks for observing that.
It was the self-assurance and the poor arguments that got me a bit annoyed, since these were four fine examples from the beginning, but your point is well-taken.
I think it's interesting that people would find it acceptable to intentionally deceive others to possibly prevent competition on an autograph. Did it work? How does it help the credibility of this site?
We all have our personal opinions which may be right or wrong. But, either way, they should be honest opinions. Intentional deception is always wrong. IMHO.
Agree, intentional deception is wrong, but on the other hand: would you help people with less knowledge as they might be bidding against you later one? That’s a more delicate question.
Also, no proof of intentional deception going on on this forum, I maybe should have toned down. However, these autographs were open doors….
Let's see if we can all agree that either:
1) Informed bidders didn't want competition, or 2) The naysayers were all wrong, despite being informed on Beatles autographs.
When it's broken down that way..........
Interesting. Patterned forgeries hmmm Joe Long, So Cal forger etc. From my perspective, looking back the autographs look too good to be true, no rush just slow and deliberate, small auction house which the forgers tend to use as it doesn’t draw as much attention, lastly the story. It seems the more elaborate the story the greater the chance they might not be genuine. Perhaps a large auction house like Omega, Bonhams etc would have elicited a different response.
I’ll step out on a limb and provide potential scenarios. As John and Paul were at the studio for two days it is possible that the original owner prearranged the signing by asking them to sign on the 2nd day and bought her two Lp’s with her or just as likely she knew John and Paul were coming to the studio and she brought her 2 Lp’s along hoping to get them signed.
In any event differing opinions is good for discussion and learning. Over the top holier than though commentary is just rude!!