For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
dead.flowers
It is said that in the early years at times or temporarily Keith used the surname "Richard", without "s" at the end.
d.f
EDIT:
Which surname respectively which signature did he use in May or October 1963?
Quote
Christiaan
If Í'm right, the date is May 1963. In England they write 10-05-1963 for May 1963 as in the Netherlans and in the USA they write 05-10-1963 for May 1963. As the Stones not went as early as 1964 to the USA , this should be May 1963. Correct me I'm wrong.
Quote
DGA35
I like how it says Ian Stuart and Charles Watts. Also, if I recall correctly, the band used to have people within the organization sign things on their behalf, like fans writing in asking for autograph pics etc.
Quote
joshbg2k
I've looked at that one. The Brian signature on that back of that album is pretty different than the signed receipts from the auction.
This example below is closer to mine than the band signed EP from the auction:
Quote
joshbg2kQuote
DGA35
I like how it says Ian Stuart and Charles Watts. Also, if I recall correctly, the band used to have people within the organization sign things on their behalf, like fans writing in asking for autograph pics etc.
Yes, for sure. It looks like the signatures came from an autograph book. There are cut out pictures of the Hollies on the flip side of the Brian/Keith/Bill page. Ian may have signed on a different page. There's an unknown signature on the back of the Jagger/Watts page as well, so in this case I don't think it was obtained via mail.
The thing about the set is, most of them seem to me to be pretty close, considering how their writing may have evolved over the years. I'm fairly familiar with their autographs. And the other question is - in May of 63 would the Stones have had the well oiled operation required to fake a set of 5 signatures with 5 different hands? This is kind of doubt.
All part of the adventure of trying to authenticate it.
Quote
swimtothemoon
The set of autographs in question seem to be on the back of something. Knowing what is on the opposite side might help authenticate the set of autographs.
Quote
swimtothemoon
So these are from a scrapbook or large autograph book? I see one of the pages, you are showing, has the Hollies - with a very young Graham Nash.
Quote
swimtothemoon
So these are from a scrapbook or large autograph book? I see one of the pages, you are showing, has the Hollies - with a very young Graham Nash.
Quote
dead.flowers
The part
Bill Wyman
To Evelyn
Keith Richards
looks to me like all done in a flow by one and the same hand.
d.f
Quote
joshbg2k
I think that’s Charlie above Mick. It would be early in the evolution of his signature.
Quote
Bungo
My 2 cents is this :
Assume all autographs without concrete provenance/certificate of authenticity to be fake.
Assume at least half of all autographs with provenance/certificate of authenticity to be fake.
Unless you're there when they sign it and you have a photo of them signing it even a great provenance/certificate of authenticity is just a piece of paper.
In my mind the most reliable autographs are signatures on legal documents such as checks, contracts etc.
Quote
joshbg2k
Appears to be Signed CR Watts:
Quote
Bungo
My 2 cents is this :
Assume all autographs without concrete provenance/certificate of authenticity to be fake.
Assume at least half of all autographs with provenance/certificate of authenticity to be fake.
Unless you're there when they sign it and you have a photo of them signing it even a great provenance/certificate of authenticity is just a piece of paper.
In my mind the most reliable autographs are signatures on legal documents such as checks, contracts, business communications/documents, personal letters etc.