We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Early Rolling Stones Autographs
Looking for some thoughts on this set of Rolling Stones autographs that came out of someone's autograph book. They are dated 10.5.63, so that's probably May instead of October, assuming they originated in the UK. I don't think I've ever seen such an early set of their signatures, so while the Keith signature for instance doesn't look like how his signature evolved, I don't really know how he may have signed so early in his career, or why that one out of all of them would be personalized if it was signed by someone else. Anyway, appreciate the feedback!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Mojo Risin on
-
Not real... any of these autographs is correct.
-
Permalink Reply by Keithspoon1978 on
-
Pre June 1963 autographs are not documented enough really the Bill Wyman and Mick Jagger are authentic they are real.
The Keith richards might be correct that’s his handwriting with the dedication but the actual autograph as something odd and not consistent with a letter what Keith does all the time no matter from any period.
You would think that the dedication been in Keith’s hand then he must have signed his name right ?
Not necessarily he might have done the dedication (rushing with loads of fans around them) and keith didn’t end up signing his name it got passed on to another band member and he could have signed it most likely Bill Wyman he was prolific at signing the other stones not to fool anybody just so the fans would have all the stones signatures and keep them happy.
Example Bill Wyman signing Keith Richard :
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry McGee on
-
That’s great, thanks for the info! I realize I probably should have posted this directly in The Rolling Stones board. Maybe a mod can move it.
I’ve owned this for years but it was stored away for a long time and I’ve only recently retrieved it. I’ve always been torn about the K in Keith too.
After seeing some CR Watts signatures in the Wyman auction, my gut tells me the Watts is probably correct, but I had no idea about the Wyman so I really appreciate the feedback on that.
What’s your gut telling you about the Brian?
-
-
keith signing his own name:
-
-
The Brian Jones autograph pre June 63I’ve got some really early examples from 1962 from letters and documents.
your Brian Jones:
Examples from 1962 to early 63:
-
-
The Brian is fifty-fifty might be
there is a pic of a early set from 28th June 1963 I have had it on my computer for years but it is blurred it’s hard to make it out pic down belowI’m almost positive that it is a real underdeveloped set
mick, Keith, Charlie and Bill are definitely real it all depends on Brian if Bill as signed it there isn’t enough of autographs from pre June 63 or the period to compare
Unless they are stereotypical set from 64 to 1966 people think they all ways signed like that :
-
-
I really appreciate your knowledge and feedback. I’m never going to sell the set (I hope!) but I have been considering sending it off for conservation and didn’t want to do it if I’d be wasting my money. I’ve gone down various rabbit holes over the years trying to determine their authenticity, and I had come to similar conclusions as you - that I don’t see any major red flags, but not an overwhelming amount of conclusive proof either. I didn’t want to pay for an authentication service either, because like you said there aren’t a lot of examples to compare and didn’t want someone to just look at some 1965 examples after their signatures were basically fully baked.
I’d be happy to take some high res scans on a flatbed scanner if they’d be useful for posterity, but it won’t be right away.
-
-
Yes the mick and Bill are definitely right it’s just if Bill as been writing the other stones especially the Keith richards the length of the E in Keith on yours is not long enough.
your Keith’s E :Keith’s handwriting E in his autograph:
-
-
Found a really early set no Mick though
I’am certain this is Brian’s autograph, he used to sign like this pre June.
It isn’t Bill Wyman signing on his behalf he always left a certain trait.
-
-
Hard to say real Keithpsoon there aren't examples of early 1963... for me are secretarial or staff...
-
-
If real Brian Jones and Bill Wyman, is real all set.
-
-
NO they are not secretary’s far from it
There look strange and weird and underdevelopment but Charlie’s, Keith’s and Bill’s are 100% right
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
