We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

This set looks good to me - all agree? Provenance is very good, if not cast iron.

Views: 684

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Authentic and a nice set!

authentic, but slant in Ringo is not typical.  but definitely authentic

This looks good to me too.

Authentic

A good set.

Thanks everyone. I thought it was a very attractive set too but having learnt a costly lesson on at least one set of Beatles autographs (probably two) I'd rather be safe than sorry. The autographs are on the back of the attached photograph. The photo looks familiar to me but I cannot quite place it - any ideas on place and date?

Attachments: No photo uploads here
I think they mostly look good, but as stated above, the Ringo looks really off...very sharp and angular...the "into" isn't like anything I've seen on authentic sets.

Yup...looks OK to me too..

If the photo looks familiar to you it may be due to the fact that it's very similar to card #21 in the first b/w trading card set from 1964. 

Thanks jj.

I think there is some doubt about the Ringo. Someone has suggested that it might be an Aspinall.

Would it help if I said that the autographs were obtained at the Ipswich Gaumont on 31 October 1964? Someone may even know when Neil was with the band on the 64 tour.

The photo may not have been signed in front of the recipient so it may be that Neil signed for a missing Ringo - particularly as he was the last to sign.

This photo of the band was given away with the programmes for the fall 63 u.k tour (silver & gold foil covers, tour ran from 1st Nov-13th Dec), all four autographs are authentic and to me they look to be signed at the end of 1963.

I totally agree with  Beatleworld.

RSS

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service