We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Wow... was a great fake man this Bill Wyman... Tracks still have a set of Wyman for sale...
Lucky tracks uk are better with The Beatles , bloody hell! The Wyman sigs aren't completely fake just not signed by all the Stones.
It isn’t just Tracks though. Apparently PSA/DNA, JSA and Beckett also consider these to be authentic sets.
Well I didn't know that ,its easy now because the guys have pointed it out im glad mine is legit..
what an incredible thread. From the beginning, I was suspicious of the two in the OP, because of the similarity in style and placement, but never thought for a minute that Bill Wyman signed them, and also had a history of signing for the others.
Same here. Another example of important information that too few people know about.
Certain business would owe a bit of money if they acknowledge that they have been selling Wyman signed Stone sets.
Should these sellers keep their A1 status on the site or be knocked down a peg or two for selling fakes
Everyone makes mistakes. It’s how many you make and what you do when you find out you made them that matters.
Agreed but to be fair I wasn't suggesting they should matching a set against a certified set previously though to be genuine is a mistake anyone can make but all sellers should be given the same grace big or small I just feel that the little guys in the same situation might have got more of a kicking on the site than say the bigger sellers
On the thread someone at some point has authenticated a Wyman set and everyone else has followed suit using that set or similar sets as exemplars making them almost legit whats worrying is how many partial sets are out there with say a genuine Mick, Brian and Bill and a Wyman signed Keith and or Charlie , focusing on Keith that style of Keith on the first posted set that we have now confirmed as being signed by Bill Wyman is a very common style and seen on many early sets is that style now an accepted fake or because its on so many sets is that now an accepted genuine Keith style and how far back do we go to untangle it all there could be hundreds of sets certified as genuine but with a Wyman signed Keith a look on RR past sales throws up lots of that style Keith on sets that clearly have other genuine signatures do we tear up the coas or now accept that style as legit
Anyone who collects in person knows there is always one out of the group who doesnt sign much that could have been Keith back in 63 /64 so Bill could have signed for him on many sets ,if a stand alone Keith or a cut Keith signature came up now signed in that style would it be passed as genuine or not and if not how does this bode for reselling sets that have a full coa as a genuine set but have that style of Keith
Personally I think that unless the full set can be classed as Bills handywork we will rightly or wrongly see that style of Keith now accepted as genuine
Im thinking that's a wyman set but get the guys to double check for you!