We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks. 

Set of alleged Beatle signatures

Thanks to all of you for your comments. They are very helpful indeed and very much appreciated.

Views: 650

Attachments: No photo uploads here

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Edward Siebert on May 7, 2015 at 5:04pm
This set is not real.
Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on May 7, 2015 at 5:09pm

there is something screwy about this set.

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on May 7, 2015 at 5:11pm

Here's the original set, which was offered for sale by Fraser's Autographs:

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on May 7, 2015 at 5:25pm

thanks Ballroom.  I thought there was something off because the Mc was off the page, and very shaky, like it was machine-applied.

Permalink Reply by James on May 8, 2015 at 12:04am
I don't think I've ever seen a Lennon quite like that one. But maybe others have.
Permalink Reply by Aaron Ryan on May 8, 2015 at 1:05am

Hi Guys, not to be a Spaniard in the Works (enjoy the pun) but is it not possible the set posted originally and the set posted from Fraser's might actually be the exact same set only a low quality pixelated version? The placement, characteristics and flow are all identical bar the colouring of the image which could be down to the quality or editing of the picture?

Permalink Reply by Bruce Juice on May 8, 2015 at 9:36am

Good catch -- they are identical -- note the line next to Ringo's "R"    

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on May 8, 2015 at 9:55am

It's certainly possible. I wasn't trying to imply that it was necessarily a copy.

Permalink Reply by Aaron Ryan on May 8, 2015 at 10:47am

Never even crossed my mind about the copy Ballroom. Terrier mentioned the shakes in the first image and then I seen the set you posted offered by Fraser's which would more than likely be an authentic set! I noticed similarities between the two and thought I'd do a side by side to show that they could be the same set meaning the original image is in fact the real deal as offered by Fraser's :) 

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on May 8, 2015 at 12:38pm

they are the same signatures that is not the question.  they are on what appears to be different color paper, and the John and Mccartney were cut off.  you can draw your own conclusions from that.  if it were a situation with a low quality pixelated version, wouldn't the entire set exhibit those characteristics? If you look at the one posted in the discussion, much of the signatures are smooth. they are only "jerky" in certain areas, similar to what would happen if it were machine signed. the example above on the left, trying to show this point, is lesser quality on all of the signatures.

Permalink Reply by Aaron Ryan on May 8, 2015 at 1:15pm
The example on the left was not to actually show anything other than a side by side comparsion of the two sets :) Firstly the image on the left is actually more pixelated as I cropped and scaled it down in MS Paint which gives terrible resolution when resizing. Secondly if you focus closely on the original picture posted around each letter there is a slight blur or pixelation that occurs with a low quality image or resizing which is what happened in my attempt just a little more hars. The different colouring could be down to poor scan quality or a camera white balance not adjusted correctly and the cropping of the autographs could simply be just that, a cropped image. All in all the autographs could possibly be autopens, a laser copy of the Fraser's set or they could be the exact same set just a poor quailty image of them. :)

RSS

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Groups

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service