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

Opinions on this Paul McCartney? Thanks!

Thanks!

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

PM1.jpg, 236 KB
PM2.jpg, 228 KB
PM3.jpg, 221 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James on August 30, 2019 at 6:09pm

I’ve also seen my share of fake Michael Jackson and fake Madonna autographs with the backing of PSA and Beckett.

The latter part of your comment makes me think that PSA’s claim of “thoroughly examined” might be a bit exaggerated.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on August 30, 2019 at 6:11pm

Indeed James! That example was JSA. Sad really - it's printed right in the photo even if the collector doesn't know his subject. Enough dropped balls to cause a car wreck.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on August 30, 2019 at 7:17pm

I think PSA got it right. One of the main tells, in my opinion, is that the continuation of McCartney after the second "C" (or after the "Ca" if that's what it is supposed to be), is a separate stroke. It's not a continuation of the C or A, which is normal, and it is not quickly signed. It's a deliberate start of the rest of McCartney.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel Alayof on August 30, 2019 at 11:40pm

This one is authentic in my opinion. Although the the 3rd hump in the M is the highest , it still looks good. It is all very spot on. There is one problem with PSA and Beckett: If it's not a classic autograph by Paul, they will probably say it's not authentic. This autograph reminds me of my Paul that I got in person.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on August 31, 2019 at 12:22pm

Based on the AU portion and shape of the M, I would also say that PSA and Beckett got it right. The P can throw you off because the shape looks pretty good and the initial upstroke is something you usually see only in authentic examples.