Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 29, 2017 at 4:22pm

Waters should be the easiest signature to authenticate, he signs enough autographs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Corey Moylan on August 29, 2017 at 4:23pm

I agree. No need to overanalyze.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on August 29, 2017 at 5:32pm

Wasn't it just said he is very tough to reproduce?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Corey Moylan on August 29, 2017 at 5:40pm

Yes, exactly why he's relatively easy to authenticate

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. Steffman on August 30, 2017 at 8:51am

It's my strong opinion that 4/4 of these are bad, and your opinion that 4/4 are good. So I think that speaks on the range of difficulty.

I'm going to stick to being as statistical as possible, and that can only be done with a large and reliable pool of reputably-sourced samples.

In my view of these, they have a variety of inconsistencies which occur close to 0% of the time. If they are real, they are miraculous. 

I'd much prefer authenticators to be over-analytical than (as they are in many cases) under-analytical. I think everyone agrees.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on August 30, 2017 at 11:33am

+1

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Corey Moylan on August 30, 2017 at 5:14pm

Guys - each one of the four in question have traits that cannot be replicated by anyone else other than Waters. I am 100% sure of this. All FOUR. If you care to have an offline discussion, I am all for it. I don't mind someone being over analytical, I agree its much better as an authenticator than the opposite, but these styles cannot be replicated by someone other than Roger Waters. 

I've been looking at the same traits for Waters for years. All of these are up to par. No forger I have seen can replicate them. 

The guy has been signing up a storm and has many different variations. But these are all good IMO. Flow is spot on. Key letter formations are good. Some different letter inconsistencies and spacing from traditional signatures, YES - but everything else matches. I hate to keep on carrying this on, but to call these forgeries is just not right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. Steffman on August 31, 2017 at 8:18am

You're 100% sure of something that has close to a 0% statistical likelihood of occurrence.

Permalink Reply by Bjorn VDB on August 31, 2017 at 11:50am

Very interesting discussion guys... but you ain't seen nothing yet... I think I have the most difficult one to authenticate that is out there. This one has got me puzzling for years :-).
Bought this of ebay years ago in my beginning period of collecting.
I put it for sale at one moment to have funds for some other purchases, obviously thinking it was real. I decided not to sell it anymore cause I only want to sell items I am 100% sure of, there are enough cowboys in this hobby.

I already showed this one to Seamus and he agreed this is a very difficult one. In the end he leaned to likely not authentic. N.Steiger who used to be a member here was sure it is not authentic.
My view is that it is likely authentic, having quite a few good characteristics.
Not that it weighs much, but it has a full letter of JSA. I asked Roger Epperson twice about this one via mail (confronting him with the fact that some say it is not authentic) and he said it is surely authentic and looks just like the ones he obtained himself on that tour. He said it has nothing to do with the bunch of fake ones that passed JSA in that period.
Some other IP collectors here think it is authentic.
I bought it in 2012 I think, don't remember the seller. It is from his 2012 tour.
What do you all think of this one?

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• IMG_4293.JPG, 1.4 MB
• IMG_0852.PNG, 4.9 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bjorn VDB on August 31, 2017 at 11:57am

I just saw the second picture is not fully viewable, so here is another one.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• 6F261596-DC60-4D60-A39E-A1A488B377F1.JPG, 86 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. Steffman on August 31, 2017 at 12:06pm

Looks great to me. What do you dislike about it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bjorn VDB on August 31, 2017 at 12:53pm

Well, there is not that much I don't like here to be honest.
Let's say, for me there is not 1 obvious point that this is a clear forgery.
The OG look neat but I have seen some examples of that. The end of the last name is a bit atypical but the flow is good and I have seen examples like that. The W flows into the G, something I haven't seen before. But that is not a point to be concerned about imo.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page