We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

My beatles full set exposed to uv lighting

Here is my authentic beatles signed album page by all 4! Fortunately I was able to get this at a lower price due to ultraviolet light damage. This is an attest to blue ink lasts longer than black. Especially when exposed to uv. I will post an actual scan of the album page when I take it out of the matted frame.

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

image.jpg, 342 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by heath emery on September 13, 2014 at 1:40pm

Yeah i can definitely see 1963 in this. His N has a more wavy look!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by heath emery on September 13, 2014 at 1:42pm

Also the L has less of a curve and is less rounded. Characteristics of 63!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by stu deitcher on September 12, 2014 at 9:27pm

I know of a way to improve the appearance of this set. If you get a nice black (fine point) Sharpie and go over those faded pen lines then that bunch of autographs will really Pop! All you have to do is forget about what you did to the value of your highly prized item. Just keep in mind how all your buddies will be blown away when they see those beautifully legible autographs on the wall of your Man Cave. I'm just sayin'.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by heath emery on September 12, 2014 at 10:48pm

Yeah no kidding right! I think people want things to look perfect, sound perfect,smell perfect and so on. This is for those people who buy those perfectly signed items that are all shiny in silver ink. Thats it! Silver ink! I'm off to walmart! Maybe they have one there! hahahaha

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike H on September 20, 2014 at 5:26am

Yep, they look good to me. I'd date them around '64-'65

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by heath emery on September 20, 2014 at 11:04am

Thanks bud!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by stu deitcher on September 20, 2014 at 7:43pm

Any idea about authenticity? It's a cool photo. Thanks.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by heath emery on September 20, 2014 at 9:38pm

I'm not the best with his later in life signature. It has a chance for sure its just his later signature is a lot more forged. Does it come from a reputable place or are you the owner?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by stu deitcher on September 20, 2014 at 10:10pm

Yes, I own it. It's a Tittenhurst Post card. I just loved when they signed in different colored inks. I wish that I had a full set like that. What is the Opinion on this item. I got it like 10 years ago.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on September 21, 2014 at 3:21am

I hardly dare opine as JL's 70s signature is so variable. I have studied it a lot but I am still largely none the wiser.

I do find it a bit odd that the couple would sign in such an orderly way way but use totally different inks. The flow of the writing actually looks a bit similar too.

It would be great if a real expert could give us a "what to look for" list on JL's 70s signature. I know Roger did a great post that included many examples but they seemed all over the place to me and there was no narrative to explain what the similarities were. I know these are hard won trade secrets however.

Is there any way that Stu's message could be made into a separate thread? I fear it'll get lost otherwise.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by stu deitcher on September 21, 2014 at 8:08pm

Do you mean as a separate question to the list?

I'm pretty sure that people might see it by following the previous thread about Beatles stuff. Perhaps.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a pug called eva on September 21, 2014 at 9:09pm

Yes, that is what I meant. Things sometimes go a bit haywire when people ask for authenticity opinions within other authenticity questions - after a while you don't always know which items are being referred to. Not only that, but if your question does not relate directly to the original one it is not so likely to be seen or answered - especially if it ends up on page 3 of the thread.