Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by GraphingMlb on June 6, 2017 at 12:17pm

Definitely reading more into it than what it is...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike White on June 20, 2017 at 2:34pm

If you were a naive collector who watched Pawn Stars and followed Grad and saw him posing with Kyle Bell of Press Pass it may make you decide to purchase from Press Pass, fair?

Any collector who decides what to buy/what not to buy based on a photo of guy they know about from "Pawn Stars" is going to have a myriad of other reasons to make or not make the same purchasing decisions.

From where I stand, that falls on them, not Grad or PPC. If you have access to even Google to find websites or communities like this one & you make your decisions based on who's in a photo with a guy who was on a few episodes of "Pawn Stars", you're asking to get taken advantage of.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bjorn VDB on June 6, 2017 at 12:44pm

I'm not a huge fan of TPA's and I'm not here to defend them but imo they have their value, especially for novice collectors. Yes, in a ideal world we all make deep long studies before we buy an autograph. But not everybody has the time or the will to do that. 

Of course they make mistakes and they are a money business. But if an item has a PSA or Beckett sticker (and certainly an Epperson COA) chances increase the item is genuine. 

As for the DSOTM LP in the opening post, are you sure this is a forgery Seamus?

I have my doubts to  be honest. I wouldn't buy it cause the Waters is very sloppy, but that's personal taste. 
I know you studied Pink Floyd a lot and I'm no expert. But the Roger doesn't look that off for me. I have some examples from legit sellers (autographs99, wallsofsound2, some other recent ones on ebay and RACC) that don't seem to be much different. In fact, each letter is quite similar (maybe for my untrained eye :-) ). Even the Waters looks very much like a sloppy one from autographs 99. Where do you see the hesitation point in Waters?
I always wonder why one would forge a Waters in such a sloppy way.

Roger Waters really has an interesting autograph that's for sure! :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JJ on June 6, 2017 at 6:22pm

Since we've only got a link that will go away, here's the original item in question: 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Corey Moylan on June 7, 2017 at 3:51am

Thank you for posting the photo and sorry for the late response. Yes, in my opinion this is 100% not authentic. As I mentioned earlier, formation and flow of each letter in the signature is incorrect. I won't obviously give all my tells away, but there are some great  recently signed examples that will serve as great comparables to prove this one is bad. 

I have provided a quick analysis below against a recently signed example to help clarify a couple points I mentioned in a previous post.

Slant/formation in the 'R' - Spacing is off, the large loop is too distant from the baseline. Should also be 'tails' on the bottoms on the 'R' - there are none in the DSTOM

Formation of the 'o-g' - too neat and straight - also he forms his 'g' from 'right-to-left' instead of the traditional 'left-to-right', unlike the example in question

Hesitation in the last name - the part going down to the 's' (looks like a Z) - very unnatural and lacks flow.

Also, Roger forms his W's having 'tails' on top which helps flow into the rest of the last name, this example shows none.

The rest is the last name is completely off and have never seen anything that resembles the formation, including the underline which I have never seen him do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on June 7, 2017 at 10:35am

Here is my 1984 LP, signed 7.31,84 in Canada after a show:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter C. on June 7, 2017 at 6:12am

Roger Waters´s autographs are IMO incredible difficult in terms of authentication - especially since he changes his signing style (I saw some clips from this year and it seems that he signs just Rog - without "er" now, which is change, he used to sign "Roger" in full form). In my opinion, there might be pretty easy to fake, so saying "I´m 100% sure that this one is authentic" is nearly impossible.

I was lucky to meet him three times and actually results are very different. First (btw very ugly one, I know that :)) one (blue one) is signed on April 2011, the other two on August 2013, all obtained in person.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• P4161649_RAW kopie.jpg, 155 KB
• P8091853RAW kopie.jpg, 95 KB
• P8071846raw kopie.jpg, 98 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Corey Moylan on June 7, 2017 at 6:23am

I agree that Roger signs very sloppy and different, but I look for trends in his signature that are always apparent in his formation - none of which are present in the one in question.

You have presented 3 different authentic styles, and they all contain the traits I mentioned above - the o-g transition, the tails on the W's, etc. Roger has an erratic style which is difficult to replicate no matter how sloppy they can be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bjorn VDB on June 9, 2017 at 12:32pm

Seamus, interesting answer and study.

I'd like to go a bit deeper in this and review all the letters. I have made a comparison between the DSOTM opening post item and some recent examples from ebay-sellers autographs 99, wallsofsound2 and others, which I'm 99% sure they are all genuine.

 

The R: the spacing and form of the loop in the R is quite identical to this one:

http://www.ebay.ph/itm/ROGER-WATERS-SIGNED-LP-EXACT-PROOF-PINK-FLOY...

The vertical stripe is underneath the rest of the R, so that is fine.

There are indeed no tails on the button but on this genuine one, there are no tails too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Roger-Waters-PINK-FLOYD-Signed-Autograph-Th...

The R is similar with other examples too and not that off imo

The "OG": in the O and the spacing between the O and G, I don't see any difference with this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Roger-Waters-PINK-FLOYD-Signed-Autograph-Th...

The G is identical too many examples, like: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Roger-Waters-PINK-FLOYD-Signed-Autograph-Da...

 

 

The W: the first stroke is 8/10 without tail, so that’s common. I can agree with the second tail, but I do see a very minimal tail there. And they exist without tail: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROGER-WATERS-ERIC-CLAPTON-RAY-COOPER-Signed...

 

The “Aters” is just very sloppy I think. I keep on wondering why someone would forge such a sloppy one without even writing the “a”. Here are some sloppy examples that look a bit similar or at least very sloppy and not that fluent (first one also with a bit of a hesitation point at the end):

http://www.ebay.ph/itm/ROGER-WATERS-SIGNED-LP-EXACT-PROOF-PINK-FLOY...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROGER-WATERS-Signed-PINK-FLOYD-The-WALL-ALB...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Roger-Waters-PINK-FLOYD-Signed-Autograph-The-Wall-Uniform-Armband-Badge-/112400963652?hash=item1a2b9e9844:g:OXQAAOSwrklVYXxk

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROGER-WATERS-Signed-PINK-FLOYD-THE-WALL-Alb...

So in the end, I really think this has a possibility for being very sloppy, but real. Or the examples I used are not real, although chances are small imo.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Corey Moylan on June 9, 2017 at 7:15pm

Yes, all of the examples you have provided are in fact authentic. However, they all have distinct letter formations that make them each authentic, unlike the one in question.

I saw that in each example, you found one characteristic I mentioned that wasn't clearly shown. However, in each of these examples, there is always at LEAST one or more of my other 'tells' that are clearly evident in each signature. The one in question has none.

I shared only 4 of the 8 or so 'strikes' I look for in Waters. The one in question fails to hit any. Along with formation, there is no natural flow in the signature that resembles how Waters signs.

To answer your statement of why a forger would replicate a rush signature is because it is much easier to pull off than trying to execute a full one. Rushed signatures contain more grey area to have the conversions we are having now. Exactly what a forger wants. 

I am standing by my opinion completely on this - BAS got it wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on June 9, 2017 at 7:28pm

One characteristic I was looking at is the placement of the "W" in relation to other features.

One thing remains clear to me - these are very good reasons for avoiding rushed and atypical signatures. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on June 10, 2017 at 2:43am

I have to say bravo for keeping this a mature conversation on opinions, it's been an enjoyable read/study so far (unlike some other threads that don't always stay polite, which is a shame).

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page