Perry Cox, Tracks UK, Roger Epperson
Tracks also doesn't authenticate anything apart from their own stuff .
Thanks. Does Cox have a website?
yes but I also don't think he authenticates either B stuff that is not his. I sent him a message asking if he would look at some B stuff and he never replied; - but Tracks for sure doesn't because they wrote back to tell me that they don't
Epperson is an excellent choice. You can go direct or through JSA. If you use JSA, submit it to their New Jersey office (that's their main office) and confirm that Epperson will authenticate it.
I decided today to pay 15$ to Roger Epperson for a quick opinion. I sent him my Paul McCartney autograph, which I obtained personally from Paul. I did it just for fun and curiosity and just wanted to see what he would say. To my surprise, his answer was: "I don't think it's authentic". I must tell you that to my opinion, the greatness of an authenticator is not to authenticate something which looks clear like a genuine autograph. The greatness is to authenticate something that looks hard to tell. If Roger said that my autograph looks not authentic (while he was obviously wrong), then only god knows how many times he got wrong in the past. I thought that someone like Roger can tell if an autograph is genuine or not in seconds, obviously I was wrong.
If an autograph is very untypical I think ist very understandable that an authenticator won´t deem it authentic. How could he?
And just because you say you have received it in person doesn´t mean you really did....just saying.
After I sent him the photos proof and asked him if it helps changing his opinion, he answered:
You have to understand that I am here to protect the collector from buying suspect autographs. If it doesn't look like it should then I would steer that person away from it for further problems down the line. I don't know the circumstances as to when most autographs are signed and I can see from the photo that he wasn't even looking at the paper when he was signing it. The easiest "tell" of a Macca autograph the is the first hump in the "M". The first hump should be the highest point of the "M", in yours it's not. Without the photo to authenticate it I don't know of anyone who would say it is fine or without telling the situation in which it was signed. From the image you sent before alone, it does not look right. It has a lot of good traits to it most forgers do too.
I hope that helps".
Maccas "M" has three humps, the third one is the highest, VERY atypical
In Rushed autographs of Paul there are only two humps in the M. Here the letter M is in the black circle. The two red circles are for the two humps of the letter M. The first hump is higher from the second one. The blue circle is where the first C begins. The blue circle is not the third hump of the M. It's the hump of the first C. The hump in the blue circle doesn't belong to the M. This is my opinion.