Hi pug. I agree. It looks pretty ugly with the light “OR”, especially next to one with even ink flow.
I think the McCartney can't be real. There's no R, and the T starts with a loop. I went through an entire page of Frank Caiazzo's website and I didn't find one like it.
Here's the White Album Macca. Notice how the T hump starts with a loop:
Every McCartney on Caiazzo's Latest Acquisitions page starts with a tiny up and down stroke for the R, and then rises directly up to start the T, like this one:
Here's a rough sketch of the difference. The White Album Macca has a loop. The bottom one I called genuine is like every McCartney on Caiazzo's page:
It was the Paul that stopped me. I expected it to be a forgery style. It seems a bit wide as well. The quality of the George did not help.
I would not judge authenticity on the lack of "r" formation.
You may have already discussed it in another forum, but have you seen the way Paul is now signing ? Seems like letters are missing now... What would you have think about such signatures if seen "alone" outside of the context of this video?
Pursuing a vintage fuller signature is the ideal so I'd pass anyway. I did not like the Paul and the others did not have much eye appeal (George ink adhesion, John faded). Your post on Saturday regarding the lack of sales is one I noticed. Eva's comments as well. Given the Paul, the overall presentation is still weak IMO.
Do you have a link to the Saturday post re sales? I have to say I've also noticed a bit of a decline in Macca autographs flying out. Influx on the market?
© 2025 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service