Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on March 7, 2013 at 2:03pm

The first set are great. The second set is under discusssion in the 'Beatles Autograph Book' in this section of the forum (not the first set for which a picture was posted but the second set).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xperttexpert on March 7, 2013 at 6:11pm

first set, yes, the second set no.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on March 8, 2013 at 10:24pm

Thanks for your replies. I had not seen the earlier (extensive) discussion re the second set as it was embedded in another thread. I have some more photos/info on that set but I will add them to the earlier discussion to avoid confusion here.

As regards the first set, the auctioneer in question has no less than 4 very similar sets that were apparently given to a roadie in 1963. The sets seem remarkably similar, even down to the use of "xxx" by most of the group. They all look pretty good to me but I'm a (hopefully) educated layman rather than a real expert in such things.

All are on the backs of 6.5" x 8" photos by the way.

I attach scans of the other three sets. Any views?

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• beatles photo-back 1.jpg, 236 KB
• beatles photo-back 2.jpg, 29 KB
• beatles photo-back 3.jpg, 252 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on March 9, 2013 at 4:39pm

All three of these look authentic to me, although the John autograph from the first set is a bit odd.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 9, 2013 at 4:49am

the signatures in the first one are good, but I can't tell if they are a pre-print.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on March 9, 2013 at 6:02am

Look good to me, but I'm not the expert.

What a nice little lot to own!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KarlKeaton on March 9, 2013 at 10:35am

All of those 1963 autographs are great.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on March 9, 2013 at 11:36am

As regards terrier8HOF's pre-print point, here are two photos of examples 1 and 3 - they may give a better feel of the paper surface/pressure marks. Not my dirty fingernails by the way.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• beatles photo-back 1 - condition view.jpg, 1.2 MB
• beatles photo-back 3 - condition view.jpg, 1.6 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on March 9, 2013 at 11:53am

Not sure they are pre-prints. None of these look exactly the same.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on March 13, 2013 at 9:42am

Well, they each went for between £2,500 and £2,900 before buyer's premium of 15% and any other charges like sales tax on the premium. I had a half-hearted go at all of them but couldn't get much enthusiasm going as all bar the mucky one (photo-back 1 above) seemed to lack character. I'm sure they were actually cheap and if dealers bought them they will be able to make a handsome profit, but for me as a collector they were too similar and impersonal. Personally, I also don't see the signed back of a photo as being any better than a signed autograph book page - apart perhaps for the larger size in some cases. Do other members have a view on these points?   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewis Reynolds on March 13, 2013 at 9:45am

I too had a bid on these. Well just the first lot...and then the prices went too much for me once the commission was added on.

Probably wouldnt be able to sell them for anymore either.

I agree, nice pictures, but the signatures may as well have been on plain paper. I liked the signatures though, all nice with the kisses etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vestland on March 13, 2013 at 10:15am

When it comes to signed autograph book page vs signed photos I personally think it`s a difference. I would prefer a signed photo on the backside rather than a signed piece of paper. First of all because it`s a signed Beatles item rather than a signed piece of paper.(Which to me makes it more desireable)..

Another thing is the fact that some of the photos from the 60s also were glossy with a very slippery surface and often resulted in "skipping pen`s"  and problems with getting the ink to attach to the photo. Therefore they sometimes signed the backside instead. And personally I would rather have "perfect" signatures on the backside and display it together with a scan of the photo.

• ▶ Reply