Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on December 8, 2022 at 9:11pm

It doesn’t look authentic to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 8, 2022 at 10:55pm

I don't like it either. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason H on December 8, 2022 at 11:17pm

I'm not a Beatles expert. They are not on my radar at all.. ive probably devoted 10 hours total in overall research so take this with a grain of salt ..

From what I know about lennons signature, "lennon specifically" the L is usually dominant compared to ennon.. in this case, "ennon" just seems way too wide, as if it dominates the L. I hope this makes sense but thats what I see.. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FB on December 9, 2022 at 4:03am

Thanks guys!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james conger on December 9, 2022 at 5:21am

I Like it , the flow is good & from 1964 /65  , I've seen much worse Lennon's offered by top Dealers & of course genuine only to be said not right  , all depending on the signing but the smaller O in john fits nicely as a film programme from 1964 sold recently with the same smaller O in john too , Looks Good IMO & a very clear example , others might not feel the same but its genuine .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on December 9, 2022 at 10:40pm

It has certain elements that look vaguely plausible but it is far too jagged to be genuine in my view.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on December 9, 2022 at 5:18am

I dont like it 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Saunders on December 9, 2022 at 6:46am

This is not real. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james conger on December 10, 2022 at 6:17am

Nothing is real ! 100%  .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on December 9, 2022 at 4:18pm

No thanks...

• ▶ Reply