We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks. 

I know this is a bit of a repost but I'm having difficulty telling which one of these autographs is genuine and which is the copy. and of course maybe they are both copies?  Mine is the uncut set and I apologize for the clarity of the other set as it is from a forum member who posted it in the original thread.

When I see cut autographs I always ask myself why or what made the person cut the autographs out in the first place. The set of cut signatures are odd in a couple of ways IMHO. First the McCartney is missing the X's under his signature. Not sure why someone would cut them out or perhaps mine is the copy and the forger added the X's under Paul's signature. 

Secondly I can't seem to arrange the cut signatures into the same shape/position as on my set. Perhaps someone can do this to see if that would match up.

The photo used with the cut signatures cuts Pete's left side off - not sure why that would happen?

Lastly the signatures do look almost identical or does anyone see any very slight variances between the two.

I'd love to get some opinions on this.

Thanks in advance.

 

Views: 447

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, they do look identical. There's probably no way to tell if yours is good or not without it being examined carefully in person.

They have been making remarkably good fakes in recent years. Not just prints. Penned forgeries that are done mechanically, and using laser ink transfer paper to make almost undetectable copies that can be applied to paper, plastic, glass, wood, metal...you name it. Scary.

I’m also convinced that they are the ‘same’ set. Assuming that one set is genuine and that aren’t both copies I’d guess that the cut signatures are more likely to be authentic, they just seem cleaner and sharper.

It’s not much more than a guess though tbh and the fact that copies exist would probably put me off of the idea of owning either set.
You may be right although the resolution on both sets of photos is poor as I snapped the pic off my computer screen. In person my set is pretty crisp except for the slight smudges.

I also agree when you see a really good copy it affects the desirability of the original.

So how would an expert tell a copy from an original with no "original" to compare to. Mine has real ink laid down, light impressions in the cardboard, under the loupe it looks good, and I'm not convinced it's good?

"Mine has real ink laid down, light impressions in the cardboard, under the loupe it looks good" - Unfortunately, I don't think that is enough anymore. I agree with Steve - very scary stuff lately.

I attach a composite. Scale, rotation and more such as photo distortion needed to be worked out. I note the signatures on the same page all appear signed on the same slant. Some of the things I have seen lately have placements altered, even within the same name, or variations that appear as "genuine". One or possibly both of these sets must be "bad". Even the strength of the ink is copied, but look closely and one set has more going on - one has less detail to me. This means little w/o physical comparison. Click for full image:

The end of the Y in Paul's signature appears to be longer on your set. Unless the paper was damaged, this combined with the missing XXX would seem to point to the cuts being reprints.

It is odd the the blue cut "Macca" has a two angled cut at the bottom edge - right where the tip of that last "X" would be showing. But the set on the one page has all the sigs on the same slant which looks a bit odd as well.

The image I made is rough and dirty - it was not an attempt at perfect overlay, which obviously would be successful.

Thanks for taking the time to illustrate your points. It is odd that the Paul cut signature has that second angled cut where the tip of the last X should / would have been. Can't imagine why the X's were omitted or cut off? I'm wondering if there are more "sets" of these signatures out there. I sent Jason at Tracks pics of the two sets,and I asked him if he had any thoughts on these two sets. I'll post his reply if he replies.

You are very welcome Fab432. Just trying to help. Same with that recent Cunard menu. It may have appeared I was just being a jerk, or a contrarian, but every other liner dealer (10 years plus for me), researcher/authenticator (15 years for me), Cunard employee and author (I have written my share since 2006), and that's a number of folks, agreed. Very unusual. Had it been the same crossing it would make far more sense...anyway, to me, that item should raise at least one eyebrow.

One last image - this shows the signatures separated a bit to highlight the impossible degree of "similarity" in all those angles.

Click for full image:

I really believe the risk is much higher, buying a copy or forgery today than ever before. You almost have to follow the paper trail back to when the items were signed, if possible at all.
The market place is full of greedy autographers, whom none are worth trusting! If you buy from one or two graphers and one day you find out, that their been forging items, everything you own is then questionable.
Post Chris cornell, you dont have much hope in buying his autograph anymore or any of the other big 90s artist. The way they sign, you cant study the signstures. J, mascis signs with the letter J. Flea from,The Rhcp signs Flea in block lettering. Difficult days to be a collector.

RSS

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

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