Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on June 8, 2013 at 6:40am

Looks pretty bad to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 8, 2013 at 6:43am

That was my first reaction. And I still don't like it even though it supposedly has cox and ciaizzo certs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on June 8, 2013 at 8:10am

I'd find that surprising if true. Are there pics of the LOAs?

One other big red flag on this piece, besides the autograph not looking right to me, is that it's rare for McCartney to sign a guitar, period, and extremely rare for him to sign anything but a genuine Hofner bass if he does. He's signed with other musicians on a non-Hofner guitar (or guitars) for the Hurricaine Sandy fundraiser, but otherwise almost exclusively Hofners, and then generally Hofner bass pickguards.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 8, 2013 at 8:19am

Here's the link.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Paul-McCartney-Autographed-Guitar-/22123386...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 8, 2013 at 8:12am

Yes. There are photos. I still don't trust them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on June 8, 2013 at 8:57am

That certainly is Perry Cox's style of description on his LOA. I can't read Frank's but I can ask him about it. If he thinks it's good you can take it to the bank. 

This is one where you and I see things differently than top experts in the autograph. And while they're likely right, the jury is out for me at this time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 8, 2013 at 9:26am

I have highest regard for both of them. But I still wouldn't want it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on June 8, 2013 at 9:44am

It looks good to me, and those definitely are Frank's and Perry's respective COAs. What don't you like about the autograph?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 8, 2013 at 9:51am

I think its one of those that if it didnt have the Cox and Caizzo Certs, there would be some disagreement on it.  I know he does elongate between the u and the l at times, but this just looks funny to me.  the more I look at it, the more I like it, but on first glance, I didn't like it at all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on June 8, 2013 at 10:12am

The L and the M mostly bother me, but a few things look off. But something I try to be careful about, and probably should have been more careful about here, is that silver or white paint pen on a shiny black guiltar is seen so much more often by far with forgeries that it made me extra concerned from the start, especially since it's not signed on a Hofner.

But I have a feeling that many of the members here who know Beatles best are going to like this piece. One of the things I love about this site is that you can give your honest opinion here, and if it turns out you're shown to be likely wrong, you learn something...as do other collectors reading it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on June 8, 2013 at 10:24am

I know what you mean about the 'M'. It isn't a typical looking 'M', but I've seen it written that way before. If it had the typical looking 'M', it probably wouldn't give that bad first impression.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 8, 2013 at 2:31pm

Steve, no question.  I am certainly not even close to being as well versed in Beatles as the guys who authenticated these.  but I have been studying them for years, especially Paul.    they must have some exemplars that I have not seen, because this one is definitely not your "no brainer".

I wonder what time period.....90's?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page