We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Is this Eric Clapton autograph real?
Hi Everyone...
Is this Eric Clapton autograph real? Thanks for your opinions
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
I just noticed this post thanks to...ummm...Thurston's comment. I think that the Clapton is more likely genuine than not...I give it a 70% chance of being real. The i and c concern me more than anything, but Clapton signs them in a wide range.
I understand Mr Steffman's comment about the cross of the T curving up instead of flat or down, but I've seen that on genuine examples.
The "Eric" only Clapton style would be a valuable signature study.
-
Permalink Reply by mc on
-
This was also being offered by the same seller, as stated by Kato earlier these were signed at Eric's home in Sussex England.
-
Permalink Reply by goodcat on
-
Mr Steffman.... one more time
And I quote you..."Reading and comprehending evidence based on a pool tainted with wrongly authenticated samples is not helpful at all.
Both a proper pool and this ability are mutually important."
First.... No one mentioned a tainted pool, so let's just leave the obvious crap out of this.
Second... After reading Steve Cyrkin's response I will say this.... You have an impressive artillery of background authenticator's. All of whom I respect.
And if you use them, then I assume you respect them too right?
Let's take it a bit further....
Mr Epperson said this Eric signature is Legit !!
Do you see my concern?
-
-
Today is a holiday for me so I won't be here much, but I want to remind people to treat others decently. NEVER make things personal. I'm starting to suspend members who do that, usually after a warning.
-
-
Thanks, Goodcat. But stop shooting at those on your side of the wall.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
I will give you another, more recent, example of how the "power of authentication services" can be corrupt. I had a Rolling Stones set of signatures I purchased from a member here. It's been awhile but I believe he also had Roger Epperson take a look at it and it was "fine"(quick opinion). Here is a link to the item found on my photo page here at the site.
https://live.autographmagazine.com/photo/rolling-stones-2?context=user
I had it listed on eBay for several months, then out of the blue, it was removed. Was it because it was clearly a forgery? Not! This is not the only example. And people complain here that obvious forgeries are never removed? I paid good money for this and spent even more to create the piece. Feel free to give me your thoughts on it if you want.
I assume, since eBay seems to be moving closer to a PSA association that the removal may have originated there. Just my personal thought process of who since eBay does not need to tell us who disputes the signatures.
This type of example bother me just as much as seeing obvious forgeries being sold in quantities by "power sellers". This is just another example where abused power has consequences. I may note again that I've had a Roger Epperson certified piece removed in the past as well.
What does a small time collector do? When this happens, who should I decide to authenticate it when I don't know who or why it was pulled. It's forever tainted. That costs time and money as well.
I am not saying your service does or will do this in the future. I'm not being overly critical but these are issues I deal with all the time. I have more examples but will stop my rant here.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Kasmar-AutographPros.com on
-
A couple points to make which I think make ACOA a great option and really address the couple noted gripes here, albeit I'm part of it so I'm biased. First, I don't think sloppy/rushed signatures or signatures that have multiple unique variations not found in every other exemplar should carry a Third Party Authentication unless it's a "Witnessed" sticker. You're not going to see any Al Pacino circle dot signatures with ACOA on them no matter who the source or how much they spend. Of course you're welcome to argue that authentic autographs are authentic but unless you see it signed, how can you be sure? I also don't think it should fail either. What we've been doing (ACOA) is simply refunding the authentication fee and marking them Could Not Be Determined.
The other great part is it's a group consensus. This Clapton is a perfect example. Each person that would look at this autograph (up to 10 experts and Roger Epperson would be one), would state individually if they felt it was authentic and if not, they'd state their reasons. Once all input was gathered it would be discussed collaboratively if it wasn't a unanimous decision before any 1 person made a final decision.
There's no one person that's going to be an expert at all things. The combined experience and expertise at ACOA is great and the best part is we stay within our lane exclusively with celebrity and music autographs. Like Justin said, it's simply not for everyone and especially for many here who have the time and knowledge to really put the work in to study an autograph and educate themselves. I wish all collectors/buyers did that. There's a wealth of knowledge here, at RACC, and elsewhere that is priceless and growing. There'd be no need for TPA and the industry would be better for it.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
