Hi guys, what do you think of these early Stones signatures?


Views: 1640


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

100% Forgery


Well these are part of a lot with lots of other 60s sigs and I rather tend to "authentic". But am not a real Stones expert. Can anybody post some 1963 examples for comparison?


These are from 1964 or later (Five By Five was only released in 64)

+1 for detective work :)

Click on “View original item” for the ‘63 set.

Ah! Thanks.

100% genuine 

They are a 1963 set

I deleted my comment by mistake, sorry. Some of the autographs look so heavily, slowly or shakingly signed that they concern me. Compare them to fast and fluid ones on the album you linked to. It could be only that the newspaper wasn't on a firm surface, but I would be extra careful.

There is no way these examples are authentic.  In fact, they are the worst examples of Stones signatures I have ever seen.  They are legible, yes and nicely written but they cannot possibly be real, ask Roger Epperson.  I know because I own 2 Brian Jones, 2 Charlie Watts and 2 Bill Wyman -and they do NOT look anything like the ones in question, please people get an expert to look at them.  I know I am only in my third year as collector, however, even I know they are fakes.  I have studied Stones autographs and they don't match-not even close to the ones in question.  You can even check, yourself by adding a name in the upper right box where it says: "search autograph live", example: type  "Brian Jones", and the page will take you to several different examples of his autographs shown to this forum over the years and, you can see the ones that are genuine and the ones that are fakes.  All it takes is a little patience.  I would not say this if I wasn't 100% sure.

Interesting signatures with the aborted 1st Jagger. This isn't one of those all by Wyman sets is it? What do others think? Authentic, Wyman or?


© 2019   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Community Manager.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service