Authenticity Concerns Over Signed "Beatles '65" in Julien's Auctions May 17 Sale

Julien's Auctions is scheduled to auction Lot 685, a band-signed "Beatles '65" album at Saturday's Music Icons Sale.

It was authenticated in 2005 by the world's top Beatles expert; a remarkably sharp and honest man. It has powerful provenance. It sold in 2005 to an astute, long-time Beatles collector, reportedly for six-figures.

But on Monday, Roger Epperson shared some of his concerns about the album with me. We spent a lot of time since then investigating the Beatles '65, and things just aren't adding up for us.

Maybe the album was genuinely signed by the Beatles. We don't think so. We think Julien's should pull it from the auction pending further study.

Julien's auction listing discription of the album:

Lot 685 of 724:
THE BEATLES SIGNED BEATLES '65 ALBUM

A Beatles signed Beatles '65 album sleeve. Signed by all four members of the band circa late 1964-early 1965. The Capitol Records released stereo LP sleeve is signed on the front cover. Paul McCartney signed "Beatles/ Paul McCartney/ XXX," and Ringo Starr signed "The Beatles/ Ringo Starr." George Harrison and John Lennon have each signed his name. Housed in a frame with a “gold” vinyl copy of the record.

The album was given to a CBS Television executive from another CBS employee who attended a meet-and-greet with The Beatles and obtained the signatures.

In general, The Beatles signed the back of their album sleeves and most signed albums are early British Parlophone Records releases. The reason for this is that once Beatlemania hit the band was not as accessible and therefore signed US Capitol released LPs, or any Beatles album released after 1964, are extremely difficult to find. In his 2005 evaluation of this album, Beatles expert, Perry Cox called the album "...one of the finest known signed Beatles album in the world."

Accompanied by letters of authenticity from Perry Cox and Frank Caiazzo, whose expertise was paraphrased in this description, and a letter of authenticity from a family member of the CBS executive who was originally given the album.

28 3/4 by 41 1/4 inches

Main photo in listing:

Large photo we found online (click to enlarge):

Letter of provenance by Sean Fanning, who sold the album to Perry Cox in 2005:

You can view genuine examples of Summer 1964 to Summer 1965 Beatles autographs to compare the album's autographs to here.

These are some of our main concerns about the album:

1) Beatles '65 is a U.S. release that came out on December 15, 1964. It was supposedly signed at a meet-and-greet for a California CBS executive. The Beatles' last 1964 U.S. concert was Sept. 20. They didn't return to the U.S. until Aug. 13, 1965, the day the "Help!" L.P. was released in the U.S. We couldn't find any meet-and-greets, let alone one a CBS executive is likely to have attended.

(The Beatles were in the Bahamas to film "Help!" from Aug. 22 to Mar. 10., but meet and greets would have been unlikely there, and I couldn't find any.)

2) The signatures have circa 1963 characteristics.

3) Having "Beatles" written on the cover once, let alone twice, is highly atypical.

4) In some cases there is writing in the album's nicks and scratches. Since the album was supposedly signed new, that's a significant concern.

For those who don't know, I'm not a professional authenticator. Roger, however, is. He's the leading specialist authenticator in popular music autographs. I looked at what Roger pointed out to me about the autographs, and confirmed it against known reliable exemplars, and examples of signed Beatles memorabilia.

This is extremely important:

Everyone makes mistakes or decisions that other reputable experts may disagree on. Even the world's top experts. Frank Caiazzo, the most respected Beatles autograph authenticator, is the expert who authenticated this album in 2005. He's also a good friend; one I highly trust and admire. The forgery industry attacks Frank every chance they get, just like they do Roger Epperson, Steve Grad of PSA/DNA and James Spence of JSA. The fraudsters know how to inflame crowds, and there's a good chance some will, to further their interests. Don't fall for it.

Now Roger will go over his concerns with you in the first comments.

Tags: beatles

0 members like this

Comment by BallroomDays67 on May 16, 2014 at 12:20pm: Here is a set that has also been called into question, and which I think shares very similar characteristics with the "Beatles '65" signatures. What do you think?

Comment by roger epperson on May 16, 2014 at 12:23pm: These are not authentic and not even an attempt at 65 sigs in my opinion

Comment by terrier8HOF on May 16, 2014 at 1:16pm: if we just consider the time frame that the cover was available to be signed, and compare them to the signatures that are known authentic from the same time period, there are definitely issues to be considered and questions to be asked. IMO, the George is probably the most questionable. I would disregard the provenance, as we are instructed to do when looking at authenticity, and just look at the signatures, inscriptions, etc. I do understand why Steve and Roger are questioning these signatures.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 16, 2014 at 1:32pm: I uploaded an album of mid-1964 to mid 1965 Beatles autographs here to compare to:

http://live.autographmagazine.com/photo/albums/beatles-autographs-s...

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 16, 2014 at 2:43pm: Roger's first comment explaining his reason for believing the album is not genuine now has large images of each autograph.

Comment by Dane on May 16, 2014 at 3:59pm: So, the question becomes, with the wording of the LOAs, are the two (Frank & Perry) financially liable for the estimated value of the piece, should they change their opinion? A six-figure mistake might be enough to make them leery of changing their mind, unless faced with indisputable evidence.

Comment by Xwiesy on May 16, 2014 at 5:03pm: My question to Roger would be: if you knew nothing about this piece and someone just showed up with it, is there anything in the sigs themselves that say they are forgeries? Let's even throw out the eras of signatures- are these that good of forgeries that the only thing catching the forger is the story?

Comment by Dane on May 17, 2014 at 4:25am: Xwiesy, I think the answer is no. The main reason for saying the signatures aren't authentic is comparison of known exemplars from the period (late-1964 and on) to those on the album. The signatures on the album seem to be of a 1963 or earlier time frame, on an album release in Dec 1964. Again, I know nothing of Beatles signatures, but that is what I've taken from what was written.