Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Carlos on January 15, 2014 at 12:01pm

I have no idea if it's real or not by why is it so bold? Wouldn't it have been altered from water damage?
Looks like someone tried to age the paper to me

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 15, 2014 at 1:00pm

I do not think this is genuine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aaron Ryan on January 15, 2014 at 1:33pm

It's not looking to good at the moment. Could I ask what's wrong with it? Appreciate the replies!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Innuendo on January 15, 2014 at 3:18pm

It doesn't look good to me. Looks like pretty solid bold ink for it being "water damaged". My opinion is that somebody tried to alter the paper to give the illusion of it being old and worn, and then wrote the signature on top. Besides, I don't think this was his style of autograph in '63. I'm not a Macca expert. Ask Ballroomdays for a more solid opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aaron Ryan on January 15, 2014 at 3:54pm

I thought maybe the inks appearance came from the water damage which may have made the key spread appearing bolder?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on January 15, 2014 at 4:25pm

I agree with the previous opinions. Aside from the condition issue, the signature itself looks off to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aaron Ryan on January 15, 2014 at 4:51pm

Thanks for all the help guys I really appreciate. Although the news sucks :/ would you guys be able to tell me whats wrong with the formation of the signature just for future reference?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Stone on January 15, 2014 at 6:05pm

Putting aside the obvious condition in relation to the paper.......Comparing 1963 examples to this,  right after he writes the Mcc, on your example it looks like there is a very large loop in the "a" it almost looks like an "ei" that didn't appear in the 63 examples. Also the thing that looks like an upside down V appears to be detached in your example. In all other examples it is not.

The signature appears to have a kind of drawn look to it. There appears to be excess ink on the "l" in paul and its in a spot that wouldn't really make sense if this was being executed fast.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aaron Ryan on January 16, 2014 at 4:00pm

Hi Guys, although I didn't want to believe your opinions I asked for a reason, even if the truth does hurt haha. After doing a bit more research and contacting the seller there were some MAJOR red flags. So I'd just like to say thanks because without your quick and on the money opinions I wouldn't of been able to get a refund. Once again thank you guys!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Stone on January 17, 2014 at 5:49am

Glad you got your money back. Given the immense popularity of The Beatles, and the value of their signatures (thousands of dollars) there are SO many forgeries. Forgers make it into an art form. The first two red flags should have been.....cheap and not professionally authenticated. There are very few "steals" on Beatles signatures where people don't know what they have and sell it for a rock bottom price. That just doesn't happen.

• ▶ Reply