Opinions on these four signed set of “The White Album"? Thanks!

Views: 990

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi pug. I agree. It looks pretty ugly with the light “OR”, especially next to one with even ink flow.

I think the McCartney can't be real. There's no R, and the T starts with a loop. I went through an entire page of Frank Caiazzo's website and I didn't find one like it.

Here's the White Album Macca. Notice how the T hump starts with a loop:

Every McCartney on Caiazzo's Latest Acquisitions page starts with a tiny up and down stroke for the R, and then rises directly up to start the T, like this one:
Here's a rough sketch of the difference. The White Album Macca has a loop. The bottom one I called genuine is like every McCartney on Caiazzo's page:

It was the Paul that stopped me. I expected it to be a forgery style. It seems a bit wide as well. The quality of the George did not help.

I think that’s a genuine trait. The “R” sometimes crosses the “T” above a loop.

I would not judge authenticity on the lack of "r" formation.  

You may have already discussed it in another forum, but have you seen the way Paul is now signing ? Seems like letters are missing now... What would you have think about such signatures if seen "alone" outside of the context of this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OMXunbESMQ

And not even rushed during the signing!

Pursuing a vintage fuller signature is the ideal so I'd pass anyway. I did not like the Paul and the others did not have much eye appeal (George ink adhesion, John faded). Your post on Saturday regarding the lack of sales is one I noticed. Eva's comments as well. Given the Paul, the overall presentation is still weak IMO.

Do you have a link to the Saturday post re sales? I have to say I've also noticed a bit of a decline in Macca autographs flying out. Influx on the market?

RSS

© 2025   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service