I agree. No need to overanalyze.
Wasn't it just said he is very tough to reproduce?
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.
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.
You're 100% sure of something that has close to a 0% statistical likelihood of occurrence.
Looks great to me. What do you dislike about it?