We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks. 

Does this look genuine to those knowledgeable on Lennon? 

Thanks in advance 

Tags: Beatles, John, Lennon, The

Views: 988

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, they does appear to be slightly different. Kind of strange that they would print an almost identical postcard with such minor differences. 

Yes, it is somewhat odd. Why would another batch from presumably the same company at the same time be different? Maybe they ran out and had more locally made. Or...?

It’s unlikely that they would have printed 2 variations of this card using a different font etc. If you look at the drawings you can see the differences are amplified.  Look at the far left of the John drawing - the “hair in the 2nd example is considerably more fluid than in the OP. Same thing for The lines on the right of Yoko’s image.  I think it is harder to copy a free style drawing and it shows that here IMO.

It looks like the 2nd picture might be the source of the copy in the OP.  The writing on the card in the OP looks slowly drawn and sloppy compared to the smooth flow in the 2nd image.

That is exactly what I am thinking. 

That’s what I’m thinking too. The listing that I posted appears to be a repro of a fake.

Dang. This fooled me! Good spot!

That's essentially what concerned me. You can see the ink blotting in certain places which only happens when you pen something very slowly. See these close ups:

Interesting item. I found this online:

You never cease to amaze me!

Good work Ballroom! So we know this very postcard (if even genuine) was made into a limited edition reproduction. I've also discovered the front of the postcard is blank, which further supports the case that this is a reproduction:

See how someone has conveniently added March 1969 in pencil. Did Apple produce blank fronted postcards? Seems unlikely to me. 

My question is: If this is a limited edition reproduction, why does the handwriting look so slowly drawn? Did they possibly make a reproduction of a forgery? To add to the confusion, the piece was sold via auction back in 1998 and featured on the back of the catalogue:

Whilst writing this, I've just noticed that the reproduction Ballroom provided a link to was numbered 28/1969; the one we're discussing hasn't been numbered, so possibly it is the original. The fact it was auctioned back in the 90's adds some credence to this argument. The plot thickens ....

RSS

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service