Hi all,

I've had these autographs stored at a family member's house for several years, and I wasn't even sure they were still there, but I have found them, and after the Wyman auction I've renewed my interest in determining their authenticity.

I bought these at auction in the early 90s, and they always looked good to me. After they Wyman auction and seeing some early signatures, they still look good with Keith being the main question mark. One sheet is dated 10.5.63, so that could be May or October depending on where they were signed.

It's so early in their career that I've never had really good examples to compare, Sorry for the huge images, couldn't see how to resize them. Any advice is appreciated!

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?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-16 18:59 by dead.flowers.

I'll let the experts weigh in, but at first glance neither Mick, Keith, or Charlie's appear correct to me. The Brian actually looks pretty good as does the Bill.

Mick and I have the same first name, while signatures change over time, the "M" changing at all is difficult for me to imagine, and this is different from his typical.
Charlie's also looks very suspect. Looks like someone mimicking the way he signs in later days as opposed to the early ones to me. He seemed to have shortened his over time for expediency I imagine.

Hope I'm wrong though.. definitely no expert here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-16 19:04 by MisterDDDD.

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?

I have wondered about this too. Since the Richard surname was assigned to him by Oldham rather than given at birth, I can imagine that Keith was slow to adopt it, or occasionally forgot to remove the S in the early days. That's if the signature is otherwise presumed authentic.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-16 20:10 by Christiaan.

Well.. these couple examples are so different, one or both have to be faked.

This one that just sold at Wyman's auction for 10k, with signatures presumably from '64 where nearly every sig is significantly different (see Charlie's before he started shortenings it) and the "B" in Brian.. much different.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-16 21:29 by MisterDDDD.

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
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.

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
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-16 22:10 by joshbg2k.

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
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:

This is closer... yes.
Even then though, the B and the J are done in completely different styles than yours.
Seems pretty conclusive.

Quote
joshbg2k

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.

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.

True! As far as people's writing evolving, even myself, my signature could look different depending on what I'm signing. If it's a restaurant bill, I will just scribble my name versus signing a document where you want it to look legible.

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.

I can do that! The first one is the back of Wyman/Jones/Richards, and the second is the back of Jagger/Watts:

As a non-expert I have nothing to add one way or the other, but would hope that Matt Lee and/or other experts see this and chime in with their opinion on these.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

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.

Who are the other two Hollies in the pic?

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.

Presumably, yes. I bought only these pages with no context about where they were from.

I’m not an expert, but believe most of these scrapbooks do contain authentic
autographs. This even comes with a date - so you could do some research and
determine what they were doing on that date. Presumably 10-5-63 would be May
10th of 1963 - so this would be early in their career. Only five months with Charlie. The Mick autograph looks rushed but carries similarities to his
other signatures. Whom do you think signed above Mick?

Didn't Bill write in one of his books that each of them signed all five names sometimes?

I'll have to read some of the book again but I am pretty sure he said something similar to this.


That sure would make it difficult to tell what is authentic and what was signed by someone else.

Whom do you think signed above Mick?

Coud it read CR Watts?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-17 15:31 by 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

I think that’s Charlie above Mick. It would be early in the evolution of his signature.

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

Could be correct on that. I’ll see if I can find an early example of Bill’s K in the auction catalog.

Quote
joshbg2k

I think that’s Charlie above Mick. It would be early in the evolution of his signature.

This could be possible - a combination of CRW like the John-Player-Special logo (and then Watts written out).

Here is a Charlie signature from lot 115 of the Wyman auction, the September 1965 band signed letter requesting accounting services. Appears to be Signed CR Watts:

From Lot 24 ($8,960) of Bill Wyman's auction (picture taken in London in 1963, used by Decca Records in 1964):


[www.JuliensLive.com]

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-17 19:18 by Bungo.

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.

Don't disagree in general, and a set of signatures from 1972, for example, I'd probably run from without strong provenance. There's not much provenance here with this piece other than it clearly came from someone's autograph book that also contained the likes of the Hollies.

But since this piece doesn't appear to be produced as a fake ie created to deceive, and appears to be of the period, before they were huge, I thought I'd ... go public with it ... and find out what others thought about it

Quote
joshbg2k

Appears to be Signed CR Watts:

From Lot 116 of Bill Wyman's auction:


[www.JuliensLive.com]



Another C.R. Watts signature in Lot 127: [www.JuliensLive.com] .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-09-17 20:05 by Irix.

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.

All eggcellent points!