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!

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jerry McGee on September 21, 2020 at 3:06pm

Is that referring to mine, or the ones you just posted?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keithspoon1978 on September 21, 2020 at 4:41pm

The ones I’ve just posted.

Some more authentic 63 autographs but later on in July and on wards look at the evolution, them that I posted earlier were the only ones from June or pre.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr Mojo Risin on September 21, 2020 at 9:13pm

Yes is real the set in the post...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry McGee on September 22, 2020 at 5:42pm

Thanks, so would you recommend that I move ahead with a restoration/conservation? It would cost $500-1000 USD.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keithspoon1978 on September 23, 2020 at 9:06am

I wouldn’t have anything restored it is what it is.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on September 23, 2020 at 10:18pm

I totally agree. Tape marks and stains are part of an item's history, like the patina on vintage wooden furniture and bronzes. Perhaps very light restoration (e.g. flattening out creases or removing excess surface dirt) is OK but otherwise I would only restore where it is necessary to protect the item (e.g, removing tape or glue on the reverse that might cause staining to the front). You also have to think about the market value of an item when considering whether, and to what extent, to restore.