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 21, 2014 at 7:35pm: Here's a signed copy of "Beatles For Sale", which was issued less than two weeks prior to the release of "Beatles '65":

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 21, 2014 at 10:51pm: When was it supposedly signed, Ballroom?

Comment by Thorsten Knublauch on May 21, 2014 at 10:58pm: It looks like being signed around the time of the release late 64/early 65.

BTW - if you look through the Juliens Auction in my eyes some Maccas are not genuine.

Comment by BallroomDays67 on May 21, 2014 at 11:18pm: It is claimed to have been signed sometime in '65. I also think that it was signed very early that year.

Comment by Thorsten Knublauch on May 21, 2014 at 11:20pm: Sometime before the Help filming I would say. All my examples from that period differ espec. with John.

Comment by Greig on May 22, 2014 at 1:47am: The Lennon looks a lot like the Californian Lennon to me.

Comment by roger epperson on May 22, 2014 at 2:46am: One thing to really notice is the Ringo in this era. Note how "skinny" he signs his name compared to LP in question. That is a common trait for him in this era.

Comment by Thorsten Knublauch on May 22, 2014 at 3:06am: Yep - the first look I had on that album some weeks ago was "something is wrong". As I am not familar with US releases I had to google when it was published and then it was very clear that a 1963 signature was unlikely. I also double checked with my archive of several 1000 Beatles scans. I also had in mind that there was no way to get the Beatles sign that albumin the US before summer 1965. The nearest location to the USA was Bahamas in spring and as Roger correcly said - if you meet them in the UK you wouldn`t take a US pressing with you... I agree with all other arguments as well and another good clue were the scratches.

I had a response from Frank myself about the subject and it seems that a main reason to believe the authenticy was the word from Perry and that Perry knew the owners family and the album for decades. Frankalso said that not all the time the Beatles signed typical for a certain time frame. He is right but all four on one album? As said - nevertheless Frank still is the best in business and one should be happy it is like this. Perhaps it is good that the album remained unsold?

Comment by Josh Board on May 22, 2014 at 6:42pm: Steve, you may not have lost any respect for Frank after this, but...really, getting this wrong is a big, big deal. Not just because of the dollar amounts involved. Not just because of the time frame issue, but...ALL HE DOES ARE BEATLES SIGNATURES!!!!! It's one thing if Roger gets one wrong. I have no beef with that. He owns up to it, he might miss one or two over the years. But if ALL I looked at over the years, were Beatles signatures -- this wouldn't happen. You'd be good enough to spot all the things...when Paul signed them. When George's sister Louise signed them. Secretarial of any kind, etc.