We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

A Rolling Stones assignment. Is it real?

Awhile back I purchased a Rolling Stones newspaper. It was OKed by Roger Epperson before I purchased it. I didn't see, nor can I now see, there was any problems with it. I matted the paper and eventually offered it for sale on eBay where it was pulled by them.

I have since found out that this item sold on eBay in the past without a problem.

Yesterday, I received information from a member on this site who noticed this in a previous discussion and was informed by them that this is a known forgery style.

To also be fair, I have seen an email where Roger Epperson again(today) responded this set of signatures looks fine. Also, I have in my possession a ticket to the event on the same date as the newspaper, attendance wristbands for the event, and photo of the event site and inside during the concert.

I simply would appreciate to figure out if these signatures are, indeed, genuine or do they appear suspect. I both love and dislike a challenge and this is one to me. Appreciate any and all thoughtful responses.

Thank-you.

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

005.jpg, 2.2 MB
006.jpg, 579 KB
007.jpg, 1.1 MB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on September 20, 2018 at 3:49pm

Yes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on September 20, 2018 at 3:53pm

correction. The ticket is for 10/29/12. But, all the components come with the signatures together.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on September 20, 2018 at 3:56pm

The newspaper is dated 10/29/12 as well. The wristbands are not dated.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on September 20, 2018 at 4:10pm

If you will also notice, the banner hung on the building exterior is also dated 29 Oct 2012.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 20, 2018 at 4:31pm

Yes indeed. Everything is from 10/29 with the possible exception of the wristbands.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Devon Laney on September 20, 2018 at 6:58pm

These all look bad to me. They look like “drawn” signatures that used older period graphs as the source. Unfortunately, the date these graphs were supposedly signed - the date of the secret show - the style of the Stones signatures did not look like these signatures. I’m no expert, but these all look obviously bad to me. The only one that is *remotely* close to me, and might deserve a second look, is the Jagger. However, I still think they are all bad - on both the album and the newspaper.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on September 20, 2018 at 7:39pm

I do not want to interject too much in this discussion as I really want to hear what my fellow members have to say.

As I see this discussion develop I have a couple of thoughts. First, if it's not authentic then Mr. Epperson appears to have missed the mark not once but twice. That's interesting.

Also, someone has gone to all the trouble to acquire supporting evidence to help "prove" their case and yet decided to choose a generic newspaper to forge a set of signatures for a few dollars. Seems like a poor choice when they could have signed an album or better item to make it a bit more attractive. Strange as well.

Perhaps my mind is over thinking things.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on September 20, 2018 at 7:56pm

strange set. and the one on the album does look suspiciously like the one in the discussion. One thing that strikes me is when you look at authentic Jagger signatures, it is very unusual to see the long squiggle in his last name. In the case of these two examples, they are virtually identical, and both have the long squiggle.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on September 20, 2018 at 9:14pm

It's getting quite clear what the conclusion is. Although I understand the "added value" throw ins are a trick of the trade. Why waste them on a silly newspaper? If you are going to commit a moral(and legal) crime you might as well do it with a better medium than a newspaper unrelated to the band. Just my two cents worth.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Corey Moylan on September 21, 2018 at 7:53am

I think the reason for the newpaper is that its the cheapest medium for a forger to practice. Find a paper date that matches a ticket stub and then write away until one looks passable. You can definitely notice the formation similarities between the paper and album, as well as moments of shakiness and indecisiveness. I think its a decent attempt, but overall too many inconsistencies in overall structure.