We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

John Lennon Autograph

I have received an offer to buy this autograph. A Quick-Opinion is supposed to be available. What do you think of this John autograph and from which time it comes ? (early 64?)

What would you pay at most for it?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Susanne DeKerk on February 5, 2021 at 7:58pm

I looked and found the following autograph, it has been checked and is authentic. Do you see any differences to the OP?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 5, 2021 at 8:27pm

Yes, the "J", the "Jo" connection and the 1st and 4th "n" do not echo each other as the OP.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on February 5, 2021 at 10:10pm

It has a couple of Lennon's typicall "top-of-the-loop" ink blobs ("h" and "e") and is potentially OK but personally I wouldn't go for anything that gets such a mixed reception from other collectors. It looks like the paper has been aged deliberately and the look of the piece as a whole is not wildly attractive. Even with cast-iron authentication I wouldn't pay more than $500 for it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Adams on February 6, 2021 at 3:04am

I am not a collector or expert on JL signature. But I think it's highly probable to be genuine. The angle, swiftness and the NNON look OK to me.

Any paperwork with this at all?

Mark

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on February 6, 2021 at 5:29am

Tough one...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin Peters on February 6, 2021 at 6:01am

To me it looks quite similar to the Lennon in this Joe Long set (with the exception of the "E" not being capitalized). Note that the aforementioned ink blots are present in the "h" and both "e's" on this Long forgery.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on February 6, 2021 at 6:24am

Good spot re the ink blots. I think the OP looks less "drawn" than the Long but maybe the "same hand" look of the other three in the Long causes some bias.

Strangely, I only have one ink blot on my '64 Lennon:

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fab432 on February 6, 2021 at 9:35am

I agree this is a tough one. Interesting to see how divided the comments are by this learned group of collectors. That in itself might be enough to keep most buyers away unless there was a written COA from Tracks or perhaps Frank or Roger. My initial thought was not genuine however after a closer examination I think it is ok. There is a good flow to the signature, no hesitation and overall composition is good. I was a bit concerned with the letter spacing in John but it seems to check out against my exemplars. I also don’t think the paper has been artificially aged. Having said all that I think the uncertainty would affect the purchase price now and perhaps the sale price in the future.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 6, 2021 at 10:38am

Same hand?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on February 6, 2021 at 2:38pm

Hi Suzannah, so just to clarify which leading Beatles expert/company has oked the Lennon you have posted?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 6, 2021 at 2:57pm

Tracks doesn’t provide “Quick Opinions.” It was also claimed in this discussion that Jason from Tracks had provided a quick opinion. However, I asked him about it and he said he had never even seen the item in question before.

https://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/beatles-autograph-o...