We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

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.

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JAKE JONES on August 15, 2016 at 1:43pm

I feel the same way with early Elvis Presley autographs.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 15, 2016 at 2:50pm

The vintage items are an easy sell and modern bands take longer.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on August 15, 2016 at 3:35pm

But...anything Lennon will sell no matter when period of his life it's from!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 15, 2016 at 3:57pm

Let me clarify, beatles vs foo fighters.
All lennons are vintage.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on August 15, 2016 at 4:38pm

Lots of collectors would call "vintage" as something signed during The Beatle years..as least up to April 10, 1970. After that...it's "post" Beatles.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on August 15, 2016 at 4:44pm

I know Jim, but to me being born in 79 lennons are all vintage.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on August 16, 2016 at 5:41am

That's OK Paul...I was born in the 1950's...and I'm a first generation Beatles/Lennon fan!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on August 16, 2016 at 9:27am

I think the original question as to whether date matters is a bit of a no-brainer. For instance, I cannot imagine anyone not being interested in whether a Lennon autograph is from 1963 or 1980.

I may be shaking the hornets' nest here but I would much rather have Fab 4 autographs (individually or as a whole group) from a later period, say from mid-1964 to 1980, than from the mid- 1962 - 1963 period when they were signing anything and everything for anyone. For other artists, like Bowie it is different - I'd far rather have a Ziggy LP signed in 1972 than an LP signed after the 70s.

It would certainly be great to have examples of Beatles' autographs for each year from 1960 to 1980. It would be a very difficult and expensive task to assemble a complete collection. Does anyone know if such a collection exists (at least in part)?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on August 16, 2016 at 11:34am

I think anytime you can pinpoint where/when something is signed is a win. There are so many cuts and scraps of paper and index cards signed that tell practically no story on its own.

I would prefer first knowing something is real without having to rely on the judgement of PSA who may be guessing. The lineage of a piece is important to me personally, but a good example of the signature is also as if not greater importance.

As I said, I would like a Beatle signature signed during anytime while they were a Beatle. (not that I would refuse a good example from anytime period) but like Pete demonstrated through the years celebs start shortening their signature, so the earlier is more likely the better.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patrick Batson on August 16, 2016 at 12:43pm

The Lennon/McCartney 1970's checks are quite impressive.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh Board on August 16, 2016 at 10:31pm

That's a really interesting question. I think, upon first thinking about it, we'd all say "I'd rather have a 1964 photo of the Beatles, signed from that time...but, let me put it another way. Would you rather have a photo of them from that era, signed at that time....OR....a Sgt. Pepper record, with complete signatures....but Lennon signed it in 1975...McCartney in 1985....Ringo in 2011 ???? See my point? I'm guessing 95% of us, would take the Pepper piece.

On a side note, I have a Ringo poster, signed with his old signature (full name), that I'm thinking about selling. If somebody were to offer me a good price, I'd take it.