We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks. 

Any thoughts on these? The first set is supposedly from 1963 and the second from 1965.

Views: 830

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The first set are great. The second set is under discusssion in the 'Beatles Autograph Book' in this section of the forum (not the first set for which a picture was posted but the second set).

first set, yes, the second set no.

Thanks for your replies. I had not seen the earlier (extensive) discussion re the second set as it was embedded in another thread. I have some more photos/info on that set but I will add them to the earlier discussion to avoid confusion here.

As regards the first set, the auctioneer in question has no less than 4 very similar sets that were apparently given to a roadie in 1963. The sets seem remarkably similar, even down to the use of "xxx" by most of the group. They all look pretty good to me but I'm a (hopefully) educated layman rather than a real expert in such things.

All are on the backs of 6.5" x 8" photos by the way.

I attach scans of the other three sets. Any views?

Attachments: No photo uploads here

All three of these look authentic to me, although the John autograph from the first set is a bit odd.

the signatures in the first one are good, but I can't tell if they are a pre-print.

Look good to me, but I'm not the expert.

What a nice little lot to own!

All of those 1963 autographs are great.

As regards terrier8HOF's pre-print point, here are two photos of examples 1 and 3 - they may give a better feel of the paper surface/pressure marks. Not my dirty fingernails by the way.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Not sure they are pre-prints. None of these look exactly the same.

Well, they each went for between £2,500 and £2,900 before buyer's premium of 15% and any other charges like sales tax on the premium. I had a half-hearted go at all of them but couldn't get much enthusiasm going as all bar the mucky one (photo-back 1 above) seemed to lack character. I'm sure they were actually cheap and if dealers bought them they will be able to make a handsome profit, but for me as a collector they were too similar and impersonal. Personally, I also don't see the signed back of a photo as being any better than a signed autograph book page - apart perhaps for the larger size in some cases. Do other members have a view on these points?   

I too had a bid on these. Well just the first lot...and then the prices went too much for me once the commission was added on.

Probably wouldnt be able to sell them for anymore either.

I agree, nice pictures, but the signatures may as well have been on plain paper. I liked the signatures though, all nice with the kisses etc.

When it comes to signed autograph book page vs signed photos I personally think it`s a difference. I would prefer a signed photo on the backside rather than a signed piece of paper. First of all because it`s a signed Beatles item rather than a signed piece of paper.(Which to me makes it more desireable)..

Another thing is the fact that some of the photos from the 60s also were glossy with a very slippery surface and often resulted in "skipping pen`s"  and problems with getting the ink to attach to the photo. Therefore they sometimes signed the backside instead. And personally I would rather have "perfect" signatures on the backside and display it together with a scan of the photo.

RSS

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service