Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike T on December 8, 2015 at 12:20pm

I think you are taking mostly the right approach here.  There are things I have not posted that I think you are looking for.  I will not post a breakdown of all the elements (letter by letter, stroke by stroke) that separate Mr. Duncan's signatures from authentic signatures just yet. We don't know enough of the story.  If I do that, whoever may be forging these signatures can just take it and run.  We don't want that to happen.  When you compare the signatures up close, though, it is quite telling.  I think you will agree when we get to that point.  Until then, I have only posted broad characteristics as to why the signatures are suspicious.  This will enable experts like Epperson to investigate further and we will see if they come to the same conclusion that the folks here have.

I think Stephen has already admitted that not all of the signatures he claimed were "in person" were actually signed in his presence.  It could be a matter of someone taking his items behind the curtain and signing the autographs of band members that aren't present.  This happened all the time with Beatles items, and now we can identify those autographs signed by Neil Aspinall and others.  If that is the case, we can then use Mr. Duncan's exemplars to make smarter authentications moving forward.  However, Mr. Duncan has not been very forthcoming with any information that would help us reach a conclusion, which leads to speculation.

Since you are a customer of both Mr. Duncan and Mr. Epperson, why don't you ask Mr. Duncan to confirm that all the signatures on your LPs were signed in his presence?  Also, have you asked Mr. Epperson what his thoughts on this situation are?  When you have those answers, you can make a much more informed decision about your items.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on December 8, 2015 at 1:50pm

Thank you for the update, Stephen. Can you clarify exactly what you are doing with the pages? Are you removing the items you feel are suspicious or ones that you did not get in person? Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on December 8, 2015 at 2:06pm

I think The Beatles page notes exactly the speculation on the authenticity of those items that were sent in and not physically seen signed. I think it actually reads really well and doesn't claim them a shadow of a doubt authentic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2t7o4rndea2r0 on December 9, 2015 at 7:17am

Thank Mike.  I'm always open to new information, as it's part of the overall learning experience in this hobby, which has turned out to be far more complex than I ever imagined it would be.  About SD and Roger, agree as well.  My assumption is that SD is quite busy right now and that Roger is perhaps aware of this discussion.  So I'm going to hang back for the moment.  But I will confirm with Roger at some point that his opinion on my items has not changed.  If it has changed, I'll work with SD.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bjorn VDB on December 8, 2015 at 1:07pm

Christopher,

There is a lot of truth in your post. Especially paragraph 5.

This thread is getting too difficult to follow correctly. So I hope it will eventually not vanish in silence over time without a clear result.
Therefore i'd strongly suggest to make separate threads on every artist being questioned coming from his site.

Lots of questions are coming up my mind when I read this thread. Who are the real experts here and who are just giving more amateur opinions? Who can you REALLY trust in the autograph world? I don't know. Everyone can say something here, safely behind his laptop.
I don't know Stephan Duncan. But I see he has an enonormous collection and is respected by many. So clear unquestionable PROOF is necessary before someone can say he has forgeries in his collection. My gut says that it would be very weird he forges items if he has so many genuine items in his collection. Why on earth would someone do that(as Bruce juice mentioned). When I look through his site on the sigs I am familiar with I see genuine items. I could be wrong and they could be master forgeries. I just don't know, it's only my gut.


On a side note, some thoughts about N. Steiger.
He told me in a message on RACC(prior to this thread and before I knew he was Steiger) that there are political games in the autograph industry and that people try to destroy people, which he said is very childish. Isn't that what he is doing here on AML to some extent?
He enters here as Jim Officer, threatens Roger Epperson ("i can put out all dirt on you bro"), comes back as Steiger and still throws out his hate towards TPA's now and then. His track record here is full of inconsistencies: saying he has stopped selling autographs (Jim Officer), interveining as Steiger in a thread about sodoautograhs which appears to be himself, etc... Why would you do such a things if you have nothing to hide? It's easy to throw a grenade and run away. He already said numerous times he just wants to help and he will leave AML. But he keeps coming back. An item is always a 100% forgery for him, there is never room for discussion. Even if he might be selling genuine items, I have a hard time not to take his posts with a grain of salt and to fully trust him giving his track record.

But that's not the most important, I hope all of the items from SD get a full investigation by as many experts as possible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on December 8, 2015 at 2:54pm

Very good Bjorn, not to mention he gave opinions to people on an items authenticity not even mentioning it was his own item!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2t7o4rndea2r0 on December 9, 2015 at 7:09am

Understand and agree Bjorn.  For me personally, it has been a process of learning from experience.  Even honest experts trying their best to render objective opinions can be fooled.  This is an inexact process. So it comes down to who you trust is giving you an honest assessment.  For me, I am perfectly comfortable working with Roger Epperson.  I posted here a while back that Roger had an opportunity to act on a conflict of interest (giving an opinion about an item I was considering when he was selling the same thing on his website at the time) and did not do so.  He did the right thing.  He told me the item I was considering was good and never mentioned that he had one available.  His technical competency is not in question and he has demonstrated fairness and ethical conduct consistently.  That's how you earn respect and loyalty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Innuendo on December 6, 2015 at 4:47pm

[Response to a reply by Stephen Duncan that he deleted:]

Not sure why you feel the need to respond so defensively. I have never claimed here that you forged anything. I simply said I do not believe this Brian to be genuine. Which is still my thoughts on it, as was a few other people's.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on December 6, 2015 at 5:02pm

[Response to a reply by Stephen Duncan that he deleted:]

I comment on Harrison Ford and in this matter on Nimoy, you won't see me speaking on any member of Queen's autograph, but then again I owe you nothing, just like you owe me.

When you feel like getting around to answering the questions on Nimoy or Harrison Ford.....then maybe I'll owe you a response. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Innuendo on December 6, 2015 at 5:14pm

Why did Stephen delete his last comment to Pete and I?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 6, 2015 at 7:23pm

You're an expert on Ford and Nimoy, Pete, and no one I've discussed these with so far have disagreed with your conclusions on the authenticity of those pieces.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on December 6, 2015 at 7:54pm

Steve,

My response was to Stephen's now deleted question. It was directed specifically at Innuendo and myself, about a Brian May signature.  

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• …
• 40
• Next ›
• Page