We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
When your autograph was signed. Does it make a difference to you?
I have no desire in post Beatles autographs. Any modern Mccartney or Ringo (with just the * instead of his full name).
If I am going to buy, I am going to buy a 1962-1965 autograph. If I had the money, I'd collect each year up to 1970 (I know post 1965 stuff is much harder to come by).
I feel like an autograph captures a certain moment in time and I'd much rather picture a 24 year old Beatle standing over my piece than a much older 2016 one (not to invoke ageism). Even the signature itself I associate with a different period. Example John's early 1964 "J" is a much more fun loving mop top beatles "J" than say a 1975 "J" where he is jaded, sick of it all, and ready to be a family man. Just look at it.
Am I crazy? Or does anyone else agree?
So far I have a Lennon from Oct 64, hope to eventually complete my collection with a Beatles era only set of the rest of the guys.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on
-
I agree, vintage is more desirable then modern for sure. I like thinking of them as still a Beatles and the history from that period. I have a 1968 Paul with Jane Asher that was signed around the time before they left for India and I like to think about the songs from that time period (Lady Madonna, Hey Jude, White Album)and how cool it is to own something he touched during this moment of brilliance.
-
Permalink Reply by James Stone on
-
Cool! Yep, I agree.
-
Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on
-
It isn't just Beatles.....any celebrity's autograph goes thru changes, and I believe the early autograph is almost always a nicer looking piece and a better investment.
or
or
or
or
Some of these are signed only a couple of years apart, it certainly doesn't take decades for an autograph to deteriorate.
-
-
I am guessing George Lucas...or George Lopez :)
-
-
I never got a George Lopez.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
When an autograph was signed is a major factor but there are many other factors as well. How important each factor is to a particular collector varies too.
-
Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on
-
I also would agree that a vintage signature on the same item would certainly be more desirable, but the Beatles are in their own league. Signatures from any era are highly sought after, especially John's.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on
-
If a bands been around for 50 years id prefer vintage, but any legit items id take.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
Hi,
I prefer the item and signature to be from the same period.
Eric
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on
-
Ballroom...I couldn't have said it any better...
-
Permalink Reply by J.Seah on
-
I have to agree that the vintage Beatles are more desirable to collect if you can afford it.
I buy & collects Nirvana autographs from 1989 to 1994. I would not buy any Post-Nirvana Era signed autographs. But as BallroomDays67 mentioned earlier that "the Beatles are in their own league."
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
