We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.
Tags:
Sorry Carl lol....I could be wrong.lets see what others have to say.
I still think it's fine. It's an old piece of paper with an old pen. The autograph is a 1980s version. Controversial and rushed, yes. Fake, no. If I had it, I'd consider upgrading.
I want to try and sell it and save up for a better one, but it is very important to me that my reputation be solid. I don't want to be looked at as someone selling fake s***. If only it wasn't originally authenticated through PSA and be in the database etc. this conversation would never be happening as I would never have even considered picking it up. Ugh.
I recently heard back from Roger via email stating that he doesn't believe it to be a Joe Long job, but, that his opinion is that it isn't authentic. So it's not looking so good.
I wonder what he would think of the George signature.
I believe that whoever signed the PSA'd signature in the OP, also signed the two posted by Ballroom. the Paul is different in each case, but the McCartney is virtually identical. I am not familiar with Long's style, but I trust Ballroom if he says it is. The bottom line is it is likely NOT authentic.
Agree with what Terrier said. I think what Ballroom said was right. After looking at the other two examples that Ballroom showed I can clearly see that they are all in the same hand.
One of the Pauls I posted was taken from the top set. Compare the George to the PSA one.
The George is almost a match.that would lead u to believe that the Paul and George are long forgeries.
I agree. It’s easier to see it when you look at both together.
Posted by CJCollector on November 11, 2024 at 6:03pm 0 Comments 1 Like
Posted by CJCollector on November 9, 2024 at 2:32pm 7 Comments 0 Likes
Posted by CJCollector on October 30, 2024 at 3:13pm 2 Comments 0 Likes
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin. Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service