Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Xperttexpert on November 5, 2012 at 7:29pm

ok thanks steve

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xperttexpert on November 5, 2012 at 7:43pm

point well taken.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on November 6, 2012 at 7:12am

Good morning and I just saw this post.  I believe it be genuine.  I can't find anything wrong with it at all. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Ryan on November 6, 2012 at 7:22am

Thanks for commenting Roger, i was hoping you would come here and put it to bed. I still am not comfortable with it, but that is just me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xperttexpert on November 6, 2012 at 9:13am

thank you roger!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beatleworld on November 6, 2012 at 8:16am

Last point from me on this, 100% authentic, doesn't matter what they look like, very, very easy to tell, you don't need to be an expert to tell these ones, can't believe how much trouble they have given some people on here !

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Ryan on November 6, 2012 at 10:13am

I dont think things are near so simple as you say Beatleworld. If it was just myself questioning it, i could understand, but not only do i have reservations on it, but so did Terrior, so did Ballroom, and So did Steve. Taking myself out of it, Terrior, Ballroom and Steve all know Beatles signatures pretty well, and when i read their opinions on Beatles authenticity threads, most of the time they are right. If this were as you say such an easy easy thing to figure out, their wouldnt have been this many questions arise. 

With Roger backing it im sure its good but im not comfortable with it (which doesnt mean anything). But thats why he authenticates signatures and is one of the best at the beatles. I am also guessing that due to your name that you are qutie well versed in them as well. But what you have to remember is that 98 percent of the people on here dont devote most of their time to Beatles study. What may seem apparent for someone who has studied them solely, may not be so clear to others. In this case their was enough suspicion about the piece that numerous members were uneasy on certain signatures. Stating that its so easy to tell really doesnt appear to be correct in this situation or it wouldnt have gone on this long and people that normally comment on Beatles signatures (taking myself out of it) wouldnt have had reservations.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on November 6, 2012 at 10:47am

Thanks for the nice words, and I agree that it isn't that simple. In my opinion, anyone who thinks this is clearly authentic isn't taking into consideration the skill of some forgers. 

All of the signatures appear slowly drawn to me, but it's the Harrison signature that bothers me the most. If you look closely at the 2nd vertical line of the "H", it appears that it stops in the middle, and then resumes at a slightly different angle. The "o" in "Harrison" is nearly perfectly rounded, and then the "n" actually starts at the beginning of the "o". I've never seen anything like that. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on November 10, 2012 at 9:56am

All things considered here there is no way these are typical "slam dunk" examples of Beatles signatures. The more I look at them the less I like them

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spaceman on November 10, 2012 at 12:26pm

I would love to have this in my collection. I have no doubt in my mind that it is authentic. The discussion has been great.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 10, 2012 at 1:03pm

I don't have time, but if someone wants to look for more fountain pen Beatles autographs on the backs of albums or EPs, I think that could be enlightening. Most are signed in ballpoint, and while the backs of the covers aren't laquered, they are generally printed on coated stock. Fountain pens often skip on coated stock, so bearing down would probably be required.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on November 10, 2012 at 3:08pm

This ep was released in july of 1963, I believe. If you look at the beatles signatures from that period forward, the ones above just do not seem correct for the time period.  here is an example from August, 1963.

http://www.beatlesautographs.info/index.php?title=18th_August_1963

the Lennon and Harrison are especially concerning.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page