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.

Views: 8786

Tags: beatles

Comment by roger epperson on May 17, 2014 at 1:48pm

I think you're reaching here Steve

Comment by terrier8HOF on May 17, 2014 at 2:02pm

if this is indeed a forgery, I wonder how many others are out there.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 17, 2014 at 2:44pm

I'm comparing it to these attributed to late 1962 in our Beatles Autographs signature study by Caiazzo:

Comment by BallroomDays67 on May 17, 2014 at 4:23pm

One thing that bothers me about the Paul signature, regardless of the era, is that there doesn't appear to be any discernible "r" between the "a" and "t". I consider that to be very rare. I could only find one more like that, but it is a more rushed signature.

Comment by Bruce Juice on May 18, 2014 at 12:12pm

Beatles '65 Album did NOT meet the reserve (whatever that was) so perhaps the lone $100,000 bidder dodged a bullet?  I imagine we'll be seeing this album again in another auction soon...

Comment by N.Steiger on May 18, 2014 at 6:27pm

I hate the lennon and Harrison all together. I also feel like the Lennon would be bigger and at more of an angle. The R in George look terrible.

Comment by BallroomDays67 on May 18, 2014 at 7:17pm

Bruce, I believe that it received several bids during the auction. 

Comment by Bruce Juice on May 19, 2014 at 9:30am

What was the highest bid it reached Ballroom?  I imagine the reserve being around 200 grand as that was the low estimate. Seller may have wished he sold it if the controversy reaches other auction houses.

Comment by BallroomDays67 on May 19, 2014 at 9:48am

If I'm not mistaken, I believe it reached $190K.

Comment by Thorsten Knublauch on May 20, 2014 at 10:23pm

Hi - when i first saw that album i had the same doubts and I still have. Those signatures look quite good - it it was a With The Beatles album... But as this was reseased in mid December 1964 it does not look good at all. Comparing with the autographs signed some months later during Help it is a totally different world. I personally think that Frank made a mistake and was mislead by the source or the person who asked for the COA. It is not authentic in my opion. Nevertheless Frank still is the best and we should accept he could have made a mistake 10 years ago.

Comment

You need to be a member of Autograph Live to add comments!

Join Autograph Live

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service