This set was given the green light by Roger Epperson but has just failed authentication with BAS. My personal view is that it's an authentic set as I've seen very similar early Stones examples. What do people think?
I get the impression that the "big 3" authentication companies are fine authenticating textbook autographs, but when you get into the realm of slightly irregular or unusual (yet authentic) examples, they regularly fall short. It's not surprising that the small number of authenticators on their books don't have the depth of knowledge to cover the thousands of autographs that they opine on. They charge fairly significant fees for their opinions, but don't seem adequately qualified in many instances. Is this really acceptable? Or greed out of control?
Certainly not a typical set it was a brave move by Roger to give them the thumbs up
and anyone that purchases it would also be considered "brave". this one is really strange.
I bought it a while ago and recently sold to a guy who choose to have it authenticated by Beckett.
As for the musical autographs, I trust only Roger Epperson, I've seen Beckett make huge mistakes and make 20-year-olds respond to quick opinions. I tried to send them a quick opinion of 3 autographs obtained in person and failed.... I don't trust Beckett.
Besides of the graphs looking atypcial to later graphs I just wonder about the Keith Richards graph. looks like the tried to sign with a dead pen before but why would he go through his whole name and not stop after some letters? very strange item.
I hear your point, but it could work both ways. If you were forging a set, why would you have that on there? Surely it raises the chance of someone posing a question like yours.
TRACKS UK and Epperson are the best. This is an early set, a bad set but original early set, 1963.