Comment by Innuendo on June 30, 2013 at 11:10am

Lol how can it possibly be authentic if the ink shows now bleeding or change? Basically the ink tells you its not older than a year. How can the auto even matter when the ink screams that it was recently signed? There's no way that ink is old enough to be from 79. Even if the auto looked perfect, it would still scream forgery with marker ink that crisp. It was recently signed. In short, ballroom and Karl are correct. But yes sir, ink even (marker) does matter, very much. Not trying to sound rude, but its pretty clear via the ink

Comment by Josh Board on June 30, 2013 at 11:47am

Here's why I think it's bogus. Not just the points others have brought to the table (ink quality), but...the Lennon signature is one of the "rushed" styles of signatures. And if it's "rushed" why would he draw the doodle with it? Those two, to me, don't go hand in hand.

Comment by Innuendo on June 30, 2013 at 3:34pm

Good point, josh. I have to agree.

Comment by KarlKeaton on June 30, 2013 at 4:00pm

@ Josh. My take on it is that the laziness in John's later day autographs was just an evolution of his signature, contracts signed at the time show a signature that is even more rushed/lazy than the autographs he gave to fans.

My comment about the caricature doodle referred to the fact that the doodle just doesn't look right. John did often add a doodle to many of his latest autographs . There were times when his autographs were too rushed to include a doodle, the WFML signing in 74 being a case in mind but the fact that a doodle is present didn't sound any alarms in my mind, it was just that the way it was executed looked wrong to me.

Comment by BallroomDays67 on June 30, 2013 at 4:36pm

That's true, Karl. This particular doodle doesn't look right, but there are authentic examples of this later era, rushed-looking signature style that include a nice doodle.

Comment by terrier8HOF on June 30, 2013 at 5:21pm

the lennon signature, date and doodle, ink aside, has some serious issues.  when you go to the website, there are more obvious forgeries. The George Harrisons are brutal.

Comment by Giuseppe Basile on July 1, 2013 at 3:39am

According to your expert opinions now i'm almost sure it's a forgery mostly for observations about style also if i know that a indelible marker retains its stretch for a long time...

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page