We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Paul McCartney autograph. Worthy of a second look?
This one has been discussed before. It seemed the opinions were split equally between authentic and not. Thought I would throw this one up for further discussion. I believe it is genuine although it is a much neater signature than usual for Paul. At minimum, I find this and intriguing autograph. Your thoughts welcome.
- Attachments: No photo uploads here
-
-
001.jpg, 502 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
Just to refresh everyone's memory here is the link to the original discussion. Still would appreciate anyone's thoughts on this one.
https://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/macca-2?xg_source=a...
-
Permalink Reply by Rfitzz on
-
Just read the original discussion and I'm glad you resurrected it. This is a very interesting piece. Do you know if he ever got Roger's opinion ? I, myself, believe it to be authentic. My only concern is, as I think others have stated, is the "P" to the "A" is somewhat odd, I don't think enough to definitively reject it though. The underline is certainly uncommon but I believe I have seen authentic examples of that as well. Would love to hear other thoughts...
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Hi Joe, same here - the "P" to "a" connection. That is like a slow "S" - any other examples of this connection? The rest is explained by the chisel point, etc I suppose. Is the baseline unusual?
-
Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on
-
As I mentioned in the original post, technically I do not see much wrong with it. There is just something about the "deliberate" nature, or "stiffness" of the signature. It is lacking the normal "personality" of a Macca signature. I would not be surprised either way.
-
-
All but one of the "P"'s shown appear as "R" more or less, looking almost like "Raul". The OP appears more like an "S" which is seen only in one example posted. The relation of the interior of the "P" ans the "l" don't seem to interact the way they often do. Does the "l" and "M" connection look wide and low? I agree with Terrier, there seems to be a flavor missing - like in a soup - slightly off/something missing etc..
-
-
I agree and I see what you mean about the "S". In fairness, I really just quickly pulled these examples to look at the "PA" and underlining similarities. Obviously, there are hundreds more to go through but didn't have the time or didn't want to post a hundred images. It is all very interesting and I agree about his natural flow...although I am definitely leaning toward authentic, it does have a weird quality about it.
-
-
In general, I'd rather handle "wonderful" than "weird". I avoid the atypical. I prefer to hear "WOW" than "...hmmm..."
-
-
I understand where everyone is coming from. Here is my thoughts. It's different. That's why we discuss these out.
I think the signature is a "WOW". But just want to be as sure as possible it's Paul's WOW hand that signed it!
If so, it's a beauty.
-
-
-
Paul has so many variances. I believe it matches so close that I really can't see a valid reason to simply write it off. With that said this is not one that screams authentic at a quick glance either.
-
-
Haven't went to Roger yet as I like the challenge of trying to get a grasp myself. I personally think this is authentic. It's the neatness part that seems to be a sticking point. The flow does appear slower although it certainly not a forgery style.
Appreciate your examples. I did try to contact a well known Beatles expert but got no response which is interesting but not sure why the non response. There's more to the story but still think this is worthy of continued discussion.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
