Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 9, 2018 at 3:27pm

It’s really written, not signed. If John was trying to write a beautiful example of his signature, this could easily be it.

It probably could be John now that I think about it. It’s chisel point fountain pen. In the old days, people used chisel point fountain pens to slow down and make their handwriting better. Especially those of us with horrendous handwriting. Teachers would suggest it. So many characteristics are there, that would make sense in this case.

Fab, if the seller is offering other autographs, do they look right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fab432 on January 9, 2018 at 4:45pm

Steve. A friend sent it to me so I'd have to ask him.  I must admit it does resemble the '65 signature posted by Terrier8HOF although much neater!!!  It's almost as if John was trying for his best ever autograph. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on January 9, 2018 at 8:50pm

Here is one i own that is from 63 and does have a resemblance to it also.expecially the Len 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Hakimian on January 9, 2018 at 8:54pm

Here it is.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• EA768C91-1C9A-46B9-BE2F-70AAFA955C7A.png, 3.4 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beatlebum on January 10, 2018 at 12:13am

It looks really nice, one of the nicest I have seen. I see it is up for sale today in an english auction.

https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/warren-and-wi...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 10, 2018 at 12:24am

I’m back to believing it’s not real. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fab432 on January 10, 2018 at 4:35am

Steve, I just checked the auction via the link supplied by Beatlebum it has a bid of £600 on it with an estimate of £20 to £40. Whats caused you to change your mind? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on January 10, 2018 at 6:43am

you would to be very brave to buy it cos you wouldnt be able to do chargeback or get your money back with such a clever description

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on January 10, 2018 at 10:28am

Went for £840 before premiums etc.

I'm no lawyer Michelle but "bearing John Lennon signature" sounds like the auctioneer is asserting that it is signed by John Lennon. If they had written "bearing the signature (or name) John Lennon" I would agree that they are making no such assertion.

I have an item for which the cataloguer's description was "window card signed by PM, GH, RS, together with an index card signed John Lennon". I have a sneaking feeling that the wording was cleverly chosen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on January 10, 2018 at 11:34am

Imo there is ambiguity in their statement.  It actually doesnt say it is actually signed in live ink by J Lennon;-it just infers it. obviously enough people did think it real for it to reach £840 without premium but thats just my opin for what its worth. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 10, 2018 at 11:42am

the envelope shown in the listing says "a hard day's night" sight by john lennon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 10, 2018 at 12:23pm

My concerns:

The paper shows water stains but the ink didn't run even though it's signed in fountain pen, outside of the bottom of the loop in 'h'.

It's so neat and uniform, not spontaneous and free-flowing.

There's no uniform baseline with characteristic curve for the entire signature that I'd expect in a signature that looked like this one. John is higher than Lennon and the 'n' of John meets fairly high up the 'L'. It looks like the writer repositioned his hand as he went from John to Lennon.

It also seems out of period. This paperback edition was released in 1964.

This is the one we're discussing:

This is a February 1964 set:

This is March 1965 set:

It doesn't look like it fits the period.

Thoughts?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page