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

Looking for a signed REVOLVER LP by Paul from 66

a few years ago, perry cox sold a signed Revolver that was signed by Paul in 1966.

Do you know where this item is? I desperately want to buy it.

thanks

[Images below provided by member Invest_in_graphs]:

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 4, 2020 at 6:03pm

How would you go about restoring this lp. I understand the appeal ( very cool) but who wants to baby sit the ink.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susanne DeKerk on January 4, 2020 at 6:12pm

If Perry says the autograph is real, then we can all be reassured. It could have been a copy with new printing processes, but Perry knows this album.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keithspoon1978 on January 4, 2020 at 6:39pm

That signature as definitely been over written, it’s not shrinkage what a load of rubbish.

At the edge of the flip backs there is 1/16" pull back, This is because when they were manufacturing and putting the clear laminate on the cover it was put on with heat that’s what it really is.

You can clearly see where they have stopped and started with the ink flow if you look very closely in any case.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 4, 2020 at 6:58pm

Keith can you circle the photo so we can see what your talking about.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 4, 2020 at 7:06pm

Keithspoon, if it's overwritten, how can it be so absolutely identical in form, and how do you explain that while both signatures are formed the same, one doesn't overwrite the other?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on January 4, 2020 at 6:46pm

Also looking more closely at the Tracks LOA. The Jane is signed on the back top flap of the album. Not on the front. You can see the photo in the Tracks LOA shows the black background of the Revolver album.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 4, 2020 at 7:06pm

You're right, Adam. Jane signed on the back.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Invest_In_Graphs on January 4, 2020 at 6:54pm

I've read all the comments and thought I'd get back in this.

1. The issue was, "Does anyone know where this LP went?"

2. Keithspoon, you're entitled to your opinion, no doubt. But, to call Perry's statements a load of rubbish is a bit much. Perry is an honest guy with years of experience, and his comments were based on that. Sure, disagree with him, but his words are not "rubbish".

3. The LP was sold with a Tracks and a Beckett letter. Neither are infallible, but neither failed it or mentioned it being traced. Therefore, Perry's explanation seems the most on-point.

4. For the disrespect that this LP is getting, here's a question: Is it for sale? Is anyone trying to get rid of it?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 4, 2020 at 6:55pm

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 4, 2020 at 7:25pm

Invest_In_Graphs,

I don't think that the album is getting much disrespect. I think that it's getting a lot of discussion because of the duplicating of the signature behind it.

UK album covers had thick lacquer on the front back then. That's why all but a few are signed on the back. US album covers were more cheaply made, with only a thin coat on the paper stock. They were easy to sign on the front, so most were.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 4, 2020 at 7:44pm

I agree the album isn't getting disrespect at all. Most of the guys here buy ,The Beatles graphs and we're trying to figure out what's going on with the album. With anything that's 50 years old of course there will be a few issues. Perry's cleared the issue up and Adam figured out the Jane is signed on the back.