Yoko has been releasing new items for years with odd signatures and recolored works with a new chopmark IIRC. There is an article about the scandal online.
Interesting. I was going to say this looks good to me but I did not know about this new scandal.
Several years ago I saw one of these John Lennon signed lithographs in person at antiques show and I remember it being about that same price, $2000. Seems very inexpensive today considering how much John Lennon autographs now bring, along with the other 3 Beatles signatures (even on their own…still can’t believe how much a Ringo costs these days! :o
The autograph looks authentic to me if it’s signed in pencil.
I agree....Lennon signed these at Ronnie Hawkins house outside of Toronto in December 1969.
Thanks for all your feedback and opinions. Gonna try to pick it up today !!! ;)
I tracked down the article linked below. It mentions Pacific Edge Gallery, $2000 prices, backroom deals etc. She even had somone forging her own name as well as John's.
Wow !!!! Thanks Eric for the info and the link.
After reading the article of fraud link posted by Eric. I don't know what is real and what is fake on these John Lennon lithographs. :(.
I'm sorry, I just thought you should see the same name Pacific Edge Gallery and the info in context. I certainly did not mean to do anything but share info. :(
I reread it - I did not remember Pacific Edge Gallery was so involved. I'd be very wary.
Can anyone confirm "In the article, the reporter wrote: “Lennon himself made only one lithograph in his life that she knows of, Ono says.”[FN 35]" - which is "frontis peice" shown below. Literally everything else would be forgery.
"John became more involved, in his on and off way, and came to visit Curwen Studio to see the printing process in action. While there, he created the image for the frontispiece, a simple sketch of himself crouched on the ground holding Yoko, which he drew directly onto a zinc plate.”[FN 34]"
"John would be able to draw or paint in his usual manner. The images could later be transferred from the paper onto sensitized zinc plates by means of an advanced technical process, and the lithographs printed in the traditional way.”[FN 36]
So that would mean 300 of these signed and 25 artists proofs neither of which did he transfer or print himself (reproductions he signed) and nothing else made or signed by him in his lifetime!??
Thanks Eric!!! I am still trying to get opinions on this signed lithograph from Beatles experts. The article from what I understand is focus on the reproduction of his works in 1986 and after. I understand that he did released a signed edition of 300 sets of lithographs in 1970.
Thanks. But he did not create anything other the single image above on zinc. He just signed them. They are not originals as defined by art and law as noted above. They are transfer reproductions at best. I was only speaking to the 1960/70 series.
© 2023 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin. Powered by