Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Cushman on March 1, 2013 at 6:57am

Looks good...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on March 1, 2013 at 7:14am

Thanks again guys.

A slightly bigger picture. Though it looks like just a scaled up version of the other!

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• beats1.jpg, 33 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on March 1, 2013 at 9:57am

It looks authentic to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spaceman on March 1, 2013 at 12:17pm

Looks OK.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on March 1, 2013 at 2:13pm

thanks for the help

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beatleworld on March 4, 2013 at 8:05am

That 2nd set..look at it again...I don't think they are real.....a good try but still no good in my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on March 4, 2013 at 9:55am

Really? Why do you think this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beatleworld on March 4, 2013 at 10:22am

I think they are done by a clever forger however glaring mistakes in all 4 signatures, take a closer look and you'll see, I've seen this set before and it was rejected then too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 4, 2013 at 2:18pm

to be honest, I just looked at the larger photo,and it is revealing some things that are questionable.  

Permalink Reply by spaceman on March 4, 2013 at 2:28pm

You are right Beatleworld. The s in Starr is different. The Paul is supposed to look rushed but it lacks his style. It pays to ask the experts. It is a pretty good forgery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on March 4, 2013 at 3:52pm

I would be amazed if it isn't authentic. Even the dedication by Ringo looks good.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spaceman on March 5, 2013 at 12:50am

You could be right on the Ringo. The writing is good. I found another Ringo signed the same in March 1963. The  Paul is still odd.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page