1968 Elvis signed autograph with photo from event

[kelvin]

Nice photo but shame the autograph is a bit tatty

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ELVIS-PRESLEY-HAND-SIGNED-1968-SIGNATURE-AUTOGRAPH-NBC-BURBANK-STUDIOS-COA-PROOF-/171740348263?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item27fc85bf67

[drjohncarpenter]

Nice photo but shame the autograph is a bit tatty

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ELVIS-PRESLEY-HAND-SIGNED-1968-SIGNATURE-AUTOGRAPH-NBC-BURBANK-STUDIOS-COA-PROOF-/171740348263

What's even more tatty is the COA letter.

$_57.JPG

The author, "Ben Parry," claims he is the guy in that June 1968 photo, but it has been well established it's '60s musician Bobby Dick. He ran into Elvis outside 8831 Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood, perhaps after Presley had finished a meeting with NBC-TV producer/director Steve Binder.

680600_w Bobby Dick 01.jpg

680600_w Bobby Dick 02.jpg

With Bobby Dick, 8831 Sunset Boulevard, West Hollywood, CA 90069 - June 1968

Bobby Dick | Rock 'n' Roll 101
http://bobbydick.com/pix/


Let the buyer beware ...

[VEGAS74]

And well established the pics are not fake http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36335&hilit=fake+pic+1968

[donwebster449]

Who is saying that picture is a fake? I don't read it.

[VEGAS74]

Who is saying that picture is a fake? I don't read it.

look in "viewtopic" in my post!

[drjohncarpenter]

Who is saying that picture is a fake? I don't read it.

Maybe "Ben Parry" is making that claim.

[donwebster449]

Ah o.k. vegas74 I check back and now I see. The photo is not fake. That claim is a fake!

[drjohncarpenter]

Ah o.k. vegas74 I check back and now I see. The photo is not fake. That claim is a fake!

The point of this topic is whether the autograph on eBay is a fake. I've posted my thoughts. What are yours?

[donwebster449]

Kelvin talks about the photo and autograph when he makes his first post. Kelvins says "nice photo". So I discuss the photo. You see and make a differnet point? I think my point is o.k. Am I o.k. with this?

[drjohncarpenter]

Kelvin talks about the photo and autograph when he makes his first post. Kelvins says "nice photo". So I discuss the photo. You see and make a differnet point? I think my point is o.k. Am I o.k. with this?

We anxiously look forward to your next contribution.

[donwebster449]

Thank you. I like to make friends here to and I am glad you understand my good information. I like this autogramm also!

[Garfield]

I notice that this is a re-listed item due to a previous winning bidder not going through with the deal. It sounds as though they may have done some sensible research immediately after the auction ended...

[kelvin]

Thats one of this forums strong points..........we get investigating all things Elvis straight away!!!.........thanks Doc

[drjohncarpenter]

Thats one of this forums strong points..........we get investigating all things Elvis straight away!!!.........thanks Doc

Thanks. I would not spend a penny on that autograph.

[The Pirate]

It's just about possible that the autograph is genuine, and that the seller is trying to give his COA more weight by falsifying the claim around the photograph. I don't think that scenario should be discounted. It would be a very silly thing to do, because it immediately has the opposite effect to what's intended. But there are some very silly people about. So far there has been no discussion about the signature itself, I think that might be helpful as well.

[Garfield]

It's just about possible that the autograph is genuine, and that the seller is trying to give his COA more weight by falsifying the claim around the photograph. I don't think that scenario should be discounted. It would be a very silly thing to do, because it immediately has the opposite effect to what's intended. But there are some very silly people about. So far there has been no discussion about the signature itself, I think that might be helpful as well.

I have my own suspicions about it based in part on one key feature in the surname - the missing "s". The movement between the letters either side of this is very, very similar to a clear forgery from Germany that I encountered about 15 years ago.

[The Pirate]

It's just about possible that the autograph is genuine, and that the seller is trying to give his COA more weight by falsifying the claim around the photograph. I don't think that scenario should be discounted. It would be a very silly thing to do, because it immediately has the opposite effect to what's intended. But there are some very silly people about. So far there has been no discussion about the signature itself, I think that might be helpful as well.

I have my own suspicions about it based in part on one key feature in the surname - the missing "s". The movement between the letters either side of this is very, very similar to a clear forgery from Germany that I encountered about 15 years ago.

Thanks, I think that information - along with the false claims about the person in the photograph - probably puts this one to bed.

[Garfield]

However, if it's not genuine, it's a very good attempt...

[drjohncarpenter]

It's just about possible that the autograph is genuine, and that the seller is trying to give his COA more weight by falsifying the claim around the photograph. I don't think that scenario should be discounted. It would be a very silly thing to do, because it immediately has the opposite effect to what's intended. But there are some very silly people about. So far there has been no discussion about the signature itself, I think that might be helpful as well.

I have my own suspicions about it based in part on one key feature in the surname - the missing "s". The movement between the letters either side of this is very, very similar to a clear forgery from Germany that I encountered about 15 years ago.

Thanks, I think that information - along with the false claims about the person in the photograph - probably puts this one to bed.

Someone lying in order to sell something genuine just does not seem logical.

[The Pirate]

It's just about possible that the autograph is genuine, and that the seller is trying to give his COA more weight by falsifying the claim around the photograph. I don't think that scenario should be discounted. It would be a very silly thing to do, because it immediately has the opposite effect to what's intended. But there are some very silly people about. So far there has been no discussion about the signature itself, I think that might be helpful as well.

I have my own suspicions about it based in part on one key feature in the surname - the missing "s". The movement between the letters either side of this is very, very similar to a clear forgery from Germany that I encountered about 15 years ago.

Thanks, I think that information - along with the false claims about the person in the photograph - probably puts this one to bed.

Someone lying in order to sell something genuine just does not seem logical.

Not if you get caught out, no. It immediately makes a genuine item seem more likely to be a fake. But there are so many fakes around now that it's almost impossible to prove something is genuine. It all comes down to somebody's opinion in the end, when you get it 'authenticated'. So a photograph of Elvis and the owner would be another piece of the jigsaw. Like I said, it would be a stupid thing to attempt, but I wouldn't rule it out.

[donwebster449]

If there is no photo to discuss then the autogramm stands up quite good! It still has the chance to be real by itself!

[Garfield]

In all honesty, you'll tend to find that anyone selling something that they know is genuine and which stands up to scrutiny by itself will not create a fake or exaggerated story. The merest whiff of BS is enough to deter any sensible person especially when the seller is asking for the best part of $1,000.

[donwebster449]

It is too very possible that the seller receive this package like you see and does not who who is Bobby Dick or Ben Parry. This letter and photo coming with the autogramm in 2010 when Mr Ben Parry made this letter? We did see before that people here don't believe information about Bobby Dick photos. It is not certain that seller is doing the lies like a criminal. The autogramm still looks to be possible!

[drjohncarpenter]

In all honesty, you'll tend to find that anyone selling something that they know is genuine and which stands up to scrutiny by itself will not create a fake or exaggerated story. The merest whiff of BS is enough to deter any sensible person especially when the seller is asking for the best part of $1,000.

Exactly.

[The Pirate]

In all honesty, you'll tend to find that anyone selling something that they know is genuine and which stands up to scrutiny by itself will not create a fake or exaggerated story. The merest whiff of BS is enough to deter any sensible person especially when the seller is asking for the best part of $1,000.

Exactly.

I know all this is true, and I agree, but my point was that with all the talk about the picture, nobody was discussing the signature. And still, apart from the one comment, it doesn't seem like anyone is coming forward to say that it looks like a forgery. It probably is, for all the reasons posted, but usually within a short while of somebody asking for an opinion on a signature there are any number of posters coming forward to say that it's a fake. It hasn't happened here, everything centres around that photograph.

Yes, you can argue that faking provenance is a bad move, but you can also argue that if you have 1000 people interested and 999 do their homework, you only need the one that is left to make a bid and you've sold your signature.