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

More Paul Beatles Autographs?

This set of clipped autographs comes with a real Paul signed item. The seller states these are genuine Beatles autographs.

To me the Ringo looks good, but the George and John dont. Now, the John looks very like the way Paul signs it, but not so much the George.

So what are your views? Ringo original, John and George signed by Paul? Or is the George an Aspinall?

I've attached two other sets by Paul, notice the John is very similiar..but not the George.

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

1028.3.JPG, 736 KB
Paul.jpg, 268 KB
Red_01.jpg, 150 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on April 21, 2013 at 2:45am

Thanks for the info Karl. However I still think its more likely Paul.

I've attached a comparison picture. Left are Aspinals, right are Pauls.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

comparison.jpg, 220 KB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on April 21, 2013 at 11:17am

Lewis, I am familiar with Neil's Beatle signatures and I immediately thought John's was done by Neil. I agree that Neil's JL signature is not typical here and have a theory as to why. Judging by the genuine Paul signatures we are talking 1963, in this year the Beatles' signatures evolved a lot. John did sometimes sign 'Lennon' with a capital L and E during this year. My theory is that Neil (and Paul for the other sets) were merely trying to copy this style as John was experimenting with it at the time. Neil signed for them for years but I think that we're talking early days for his Beatle signatures here and maybe he was a bit less set in his style then.

Look at some of the examples you provided; if you ignore the atypical L and E you have a really close match in form, flow and style to your Aspinall signitures. That point I made about the top of Neil's 'J' crossing the top of the 'h' is very important IMO. It's pretty rare that you see one of Neil's John signatures without this trait (though I noticed you managed to find one!) and it's a very reliable sign.

I still think that particular signiture was done by Neil rather than Paul, Neil's prescence is IMO verified by the GH signiture which I am certain was done by Neil and this has to kept in mind.

Anyway, the main thing is that we all seem to agree that it isn't an authentic John and I do enjoy this kind of discussion especially when everybody can get over the chance of giving a 'wrong' (and I do accept that I could be wrong in this instance) opinion and be open to discussing their opinions and reasons. In the long run i think that it helps us all to learn.

It would of course be great to get Roger's opinion on this and any of the other signitures on this forum where we don't always agree.