Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Trond Johansen on February 3, 2014 at 3:50pm

A typical one from end 70`s. Funny to see how his S suddenly changed in 79-80. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JJ on February 3, 2014 at 5:30pm

Looks a lot like this one that I got from someone who told me that they knew him at about the same time. Thanks for sharing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trond Johansen on February 4, 2014 at 1:49am

Sorry. I am not that sure about that last one`s legit.. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trond Johansen on February 4, 2014 at 3:47am

We actually discussed this one last year. (The Columbia pic):http://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/bruce-springsteen-si...

The more I see of it, the more alarm-clocks are chiming. 1st; the auto itself seems off. 2nd, I have only seen ballpoint sigs from him from that era. 3rd; these Columbia pictures, did they exist like that in 77-79? If it`s supposed to be from the 80`s, he signed totally different by then.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JJ on February 4, 2014 at 9:36am

I appreciate the feedback. I followed the link you show and bought that same photo later at a reduced eBay price when it did not sell the first time. The seller says that they got it in person in 1978. If it's real I got a heck of a deal, but I can also accept if it's not.

Comments in this discussion forum at the time did not seem to be conclusive, but if you visit this item and this item you'll see that the same seller recently sold other signed Springsteen items and may well have known him at this time. Based on the very low amount of sales and other authentic items, this seller doesn't seem to be your usual "fishy" seller.

I'm not sure why Bruce would have only used ballpoints, because markers were around at the time. It would have been normal for Columbia to use promo photos like the one shown, because that's what record companies do. I can't find another example of the one I bought, but that's all the better if it's real. If these are forgeries this is one of the most interesting forgers that I have ever encountered, but I hope that is not the case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trond Johansen on February 4, 2014 at 11:07am

Hi again, this is beginning to become more interesting, don`t know if its in a positive or a negative way.. Either it`s a forger that tries to replicate Bruce`s a little easier way to sign in the 70`s, or its some very unknown and surprising sigs from that era. 

I still stand on my 3 concerns from my previous post, and got a new one after your response; this is an Ebay-seller that sells a signature by Bruce that usually would command a much much higher price than he obviously got. That in itself is a big concern, why didn`t he go to more reputed dealers, like RR Auction, or others and got it authenticated, and would probably gotten $700-1000 (minimum) for each of them. Look at this one from RRAuction last year: http://www.rrauction.com/past_auction_item.cfm?ID=3302042. (Must be a member to see the picture) Its a full band signed item from around 78, to over $7500. A single signed item by Bruce from 78 should at least give the amount I mentioned over. 

As you said, if this one is real, you got one heck of a deal. I do not think its legit, but I am really open to anybody that can convince me I`m wrong here. And we are learning new things about this wonderful hobby every day. Hope some more Bruce and E Street collectors can chip into this thread and give their opinion. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Ryan on February 4, 2014 at 4:45pm

I would say the best bet is to pay Roger Epperson for a 15 dollar QO. He is an expert on all styles and forms of Springsteen. Hope this helps

• ▶ Reply