Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stephen Duncan on November 30, 2009 at 5:17pm

Question for Aaron: How is it you can belittle the integrity of Roger who, in part, exposes the fake signatures and dealers that infect this industry? My gosh, either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. There really is no middle ground. For me personally, I don't ever go on record and say a signature is real or fake, other than the 1800+ real signatures contained within my collection that I obtained myself (simply because I wasn't there). I will say that a signature is or is not consistant with the autographs I have obtained in person. Until I see a public blemish upon Roger that exposes him in a way that his 30 years of collectability has proven that he is an honest collector/dealer of the highest integrity, I have no reason whatsoever to not support him. In fact, I wish there were 5 more Roger Epperson's in our industry. Conclude what you will Aaron ( afterall this is America ), but let facts and common sense be your final guide. Agree or disagree, but pick a side: Are you FOR or AGAINST bogus signatures? Once you then decide, prove it.

Permalink Reply by Stephen Duncan on November 30, 2009 at 5:36pm

Aaron, looking at any dealer (not picking on any one in particular), how can you possibly believe that any dealer today in America has a dozen+ signed "in full" Beatle signatures? Signed guitars, LP's, drum heads, all for sale, raises serious questions of authenticity. Check and read up on biographies and interviews of people that were around 30 and 40 years ago and they will tell you, The Beatles never signed such items and in such quantities. As far as The Doors, I have spoken to Ray Manzarek on this very issue on 3 occasions. His response is that he dosn't even own a signed anything from Jim Morrison because Jim signed very little and at the time signing autographs, "wasn't a big deal". Think what you want, but my stock is believing those that were there, not those making a cheap fast buck 30+ years later. I just makes common sense.

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on December 8, 2009 at 4:53am

Stephen, I don't think we have talked in years but DAMN you built a nice collection since then. Back then you used to collect The Eagles and we would swap items and leads to find people. Great job!

Permalink Reply by Jeffrey Hauser on December 4, 2009 at 11:24am

Anyone want to comment on Perry Cox and Frank Caiazzo, the latter who claims to be the Number One authenticator of Beatles' signatures? The problem arises from the fact they both sell Beatles signed items and so therefore cannot be totally objective when given music memorabilia to authenticate. Sorry, Roger Epperson, but you are in the same situation. There is an obvious conflict of interest there. Comments?

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on December 8, 2009 at 4:51am

Of course i would like to comment. If Frank Perry or I were to authenticate or knock down an item for not being authentic then that is where that business deal ends. We don't say something is not authentic but then out of the other side of our mouth say "but i have a real one for sale". This just doesn't happen. Frank is as good as it gets. Have we had dissagreements, absolutly but they are VERY far and few between. I can think of 2 times in the last 10 years we have dissagreed on an item. As to me personally, I keep REAL and Signed Sealed Delivered totaly seperate. You can ask anyone that i have ever authenticated for. It does however give me an advantage of buying stuff because usually people want to get things authenticated so they can sell them. If it's something i could use I will make them an offer if they are selling. Is there so part of this "conflict of interest thing" that I am not understanding? If so please spell it out so i can give you a proper response.

Permalink Reply by Jeffrey Hauser on December 8, 2009 at 1:18pm

Suppose I sent you a Paul McCartney autographed item from 2006 that was hand-signed in front of several eye-witnesses along with their documentation. Then you stated in a written opinion that it was not authentic, what would have us think about that? Could a "conflict of interest" be the issue or simply a mistaken analysis on your part?

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 6, 2010 at 6:11pm

The problem with the forensic document examiners is that every one I know that plies their trade in the autograph field seems to be in the business of authenticating forgeries as genuine. You're so unlikely to find a genuine autograph authenticated by one of them that they can't be that unlucky or dumb.

Permalink Reply by Rich on December 5, 2011 at 10:58am

Plus their pics looked like they were taken with a Goldstar from 1982.

Permalink Reply by Bill Panagopulos on January 7, 2010 at 1:21pm

Gentlemen:

Frankly, my opinion is all of this back-biting does no one in the industry any good at all. The "Court of Public Opinion" is not the right venue for settling any kind of personal grievance. Your own businesses suffer, as do those of your fellow dealers and collectors, by association. And of course, the public perception of our trade also takes a beating.

If someone exposes fraud or forgeries in the marketplace, an "attack" website is not the solution - but law enforcement is. I could have publicly exposed any number of crooked dealers and collectors during my nearly twenty years in this business, but felt that the most ethical and efficacious way to rid the world of these criminals was to work with law enforcement, behind the scenes. Why let them see it coming?

If you are slandered or libeled, why take the low road and demean your reputation be responding publicly? Demand a public retraction, or "sue the bastards"!

Just thought I'd get my two bits in. I know that tempers are inflamed, but this is going to have to stop sooner or later.

I can compare this situation to what old Jim Hayes said of my cig smoking: "There ain't no vitamins in it!"

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 7, 2010 at 4:34pm

Bill,

This is a forum on reputable and disreputable authenticators, and I think Markus and a number of dealers in Europe, particularly the younger ones, don't realize who the real Stephen Koschal is—just like I didn't for a long time. Do we just let them learn their lesson the hard way like many of us did, or do we try to help protect themselves from getting burned?

In any case, I've said all I plan to say about him.

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on January 9, 2010 at 9:09am

Bill
I love you man!
Regarding Koschal; sueing him would be like sueing a zoo monkey. You get nothing and he still is out of jail. He hides and uses pawns like Bin Laden to attack what is good in the industry. If we were in court the first thing we would do is show the lack of creditbility the person has. Since getting him in court would be like curing cancer it has to be done the way we are doing it. People need to know who it is that is attacking us good dealers and authenticators and this dude is freaking nuts!

Permalink Reply by Bill Panagopulos on January 11, 2010 at 5:10am

Gents,

I think what I'm trying to get across is that we should stick to the facts concerning the MATERIAL and try to leave the personal attacks out of it. Frankly, it doesn't concern law enforcement (or the trade) if a forger is sleeping with his first cousin's goat, drinking sterno and OJ, or anything else along those lines. Personal attacks are just plain low, and that stuff is better suited for the pages of the Weekly World News. Make the facts known, exposing the malefactor, and hopefully law enforcement will pick up the mantle. And as for those other sins? There might be a higher judge for them...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page