Today I got my first John Lennon autograph. I know the condition of the paper is bad, or even very bad, but it's John Lennon and I think such an autograph is better than not having an autograph at all. Anyway, it was obtained in person at an airport in the States in the summer of 1965. John also inscribed it "To Del & Myra". Does it look like Del in your opinion? Myra is a Hebrew name. The girl who got it was Jewish. I'm happy with it and I can finally say I have the autographs of all four members of the Beatles.
If you have something that was touched...owned...used...worn...or signed by John Lennon...it's collectible! He's a giant historical figure of the 20th Century!
So an example in less than this condition would still garner collector interest?
its a personal decision. Some will say yes, some will say no.
In this instance, I will say no. The autograph seems more than 70% obscured.
Terrible. Poor condition and autograph very hard to see.
Of course there are condition issues, which Daniel freely states. If it doesn’t personally interest you, that’s OK. However, it was touched by and signed by John Lennon! That makes it special. How many people can say they own a Lennon signature regardless of condition. It’s very special to Daniel. He’s excited and I’m excited for him. Congrats, Daniel! Thanks for sharing.
The autograph shows it's age...that's great! Especially in this day & age when...even after Lennon's been gone for 40 years...all of a sudden a slew of "pristine" Lennon "signatures begin to flood the market! If that doesn't raise a red flag...get it matted and framed with a photo of Lennon from "Help"...and you've got a great vintage piece! It's not a contest. Daniel's happy with it...and so am I!!!
I would be happy with it also. Most pure collectors would be.
Not me. It is just too far gone. Easy to see. If this isn't...what is?