Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on November 21, 2017 at 1:20am

Thanks Marc...we try...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc Koenig on January 25, 2018 at 10:10pm

It’s been relisted, at $37k. Auction format. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan on February 11, 2018 at 2:45pm

I don’t like it. As I’ve said before, there are about 10 different “late 63-Early 64” high dollar items that look like they are too perfect. They all seem to originate from the same couple of people and Caiazzo, Tracks, and Cox won’t touch them. I almost bought a couple of them but not a single one has a story behind it. They are in such good condition that there must have been a face to face with the group. You would think there would be at least a list of former owners. At 35-40k, I need one of the top 3 Beatles authenticators to ok it before I spend that much. You’d have a tough time selling it and I’d always be 2nd guessing it. My own opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fab432 on February 11, 2018 at 2:47pm

Totally agree!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on February 11, 2018 at 4:22pm

Just out of interest as I seemed to have missed some of the conversation. Who are the same couple of people ?  And how do we know Caiazzo, Tracks And Cox won’t touch them? 

I never put too much weight on the stories behind items myself unless verifiable in some way although I do agree some often the stories are implausible.....on the other hand I once brought an authentic set from a guy who had a great story about how he met the Beatles and got their autographs in late 1965. The story was false as the signatures were from early 1963 and obviously genuine!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc Koenig on February 11, 2018 at 4:45pm

This certainly would be an excellent specimen. However, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I’m no personal expert and I also would need a very high level of confidence (e.g. Caiazzo, Tracks, Cox). That’s why I was asking on here how definitive a COA from PSA is, or item from this seller.

I actually wrote them and asked for any known history/provenance. They replied saying, “The piece is absolutely pristine, One of the reasons being our consignor obtained it from a record store in England where it was taken care of incredibly. I sold another that was in far worse condition over the summer here for close to opening price, being graded this is obviously a Holy Grail type piece within Beatles Albums. The signature set is 1962 with Harrison, McCartney, and Lennon's signature signed with premium contrast compared to the few others.”  

I didn’t yet directly challenge that dating, giving them a chance to correct it. I replied asking how they arrived at the “1962” dating. They replied, “The dating of the signature's come from our consignor information that he obtained when he purchased this years ago. As well, we have years of experience with Beatles and our Owner who is a Beatles expert, said the signatures where consistent with that time period.”  

When I then pointed out that the album wasn’t published until 1963 they replied, apologizing and saying that they had confused it with a different set of autographs from 1962 that they also had listed. Perhaps it was an innocent mistake but it didn’t exactly instill confidence. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan on February 11, 2018 at 5:02pm

I don’t care when they “remember the date” since it was a long time ago. I have a 66 set with perfect provenance and the lady mistook it as 65. There are enough examples that experts can date in within a couple of months. To answer the other question, Arizona has a few houses that have excellent relationships with psa and Beckett.  All i’ll say is that they are not Beatles experts. None of their items come with history or provenance. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on February 11, 2018 at 6:24pm

In that instance I related it was a totally made up story in terms of the signatures, he even gave me the date of the concert and a story about John eating fish and chips backstage and spraying Paul with vinegar, great story...but the autographs were genuine and from nearly 3 years previous. I wasn’t going to not buy them because the story was at least in part fabricated.

My point is simply that it’s easy for anybody with the required  knowledge to make up a perfectly plausible story with any set of Beatle autographs even if many who wish to deceive fail because don’t do their homework properly.

For me the actual signatures are the most important thing although verifiable provenance is obviously a bonus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Invest_In_Graphs on March 22, 2018 at 12:44pm

Just saw this post. I find very subtle issues with each of the four. I don't care to list them all, but here's a sample: "rriso" has either the wrong slant or formation. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page