Its genuine. A genuine signed Queen album for $476? Come on, friend. Of course it's worth it. It's not pretty but it's real and its without a name dedication. It should be selling for around 1K with the fading.
as per Roger Epperson it is authentic. I have brought it now. Still Im unsure what to do with it. I might be selling it soon....
many thanks, Innuendo for your help.
No problem. If you decide to flip it, I'd guess it would sell for about 1-1.2k due to the fading. Itll never be a high price item compared to other signed albums of theirs but it's a great buy for just $470. You might get more if you sell after the movie comes out as well.
hi Martin and Innuendo , I posted some time ago a resquest about this "king of magic" signed album : https://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/queen-kind-of-magic...
Innuendo i'm astonished.. About my deacon signature you said :"the Deacon is wrong as its much too simple even for a rushed John" but in Martin's album it is the same ! Where is the "E" of dEacon ? 100% genuine , are you sure ?
as per Roger Epperson who is a Queen expert these are authentic signatures. I trust him 100%. Also Im going to add a COA from Roger.
The item is fine, Martin. Tmbaway did not mention the rest of my concerns about his item. I told him his john was fake because it was atypical AND his item had other issues with other signatures and a few others agreed.
Now I understand what you're referring to! It IS atypical, tmbaway. It was rare but it did occur in genuine John signatures. Please keep in mind that even with a simple john, Martin's item had 3 other rushed (obviously) genuine signatures. Meaning there isn't a reason to question the rare john here. Martin's also included more to judge with the year added. Matches John's hand.
thank you for your reply, Innuendo. COA from Roger will be added now. Wow... such an COA is another 45$. Anyway, Im going to sell it one day.... might need the $ for my own uocoming album very soon
Thanks innuendo for your answer, but i'm sorry "words mean something"..your opinion about mine john's signature was clear : "the Deacon is wrong as its much too simple even for a rushed John. The John looks ok, but I've seen many forgers get the first part of John correct so I'm assuming it isn't hard to fake. The deacon tells me it's bad... the John is absolutely fake ". OK, so now, for you, if the others signatures seem good a " John atypical rushed , too simple and "ABSOLUTLY FAKE "(it's your words) signature" ,identical to mine, become true..it's just curious ^^
My words are the same as they were then. I dont know how else to explain this to you, friend. Your item had multiple issues. More than one. John was atypical and not "identical" to this one anyway. Martin's john is atypical but also includes 3 other genuine signatures and an additional year added by John. Meaning theres more proof its genuine atypical. Yours looked wrong and had other signatures with other issues. Your john doesnt match this one exactly, nor does it include the extra year added to his signature to judge.
© 2023 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin. Powered by