Expert: Pattie - 6/10/2009

Question
QUESTION: Hi Pattie,
Hope all is well!
I have some new information on the John Lennon Lithograph you researched for me some months back.  I had an independent artist look at it and assured me that it certainly is a lithograph and not a copy.  
He also said that he would stake his life on the fact that the signatures were placed on the piece afterwards!
He notes the fine pen strokes of Paul and George's signatures that would be very difficult to recreate within a lithograph.  
We are in the process of selecting a reputable appraiser to verify his findings and place a monetary value on the piece.  (Since I was unable to find Chelsea Artworks, which was noted as its originator on the piece.)  Rest assured, I am not about to sell it, however, I do want to be sure it is insured properly.  
Anyway, I am writing to see what your take would be on its approximate value in light of these recent findings.
Here's hoping I hear from you soon. :^)
pj


ANSWER: Hey there, PJ, and good to hear from you!

Well, your expert is right. A lithograph has to be created or approved by the artist themselves OR by an authorised representative. Yoko certainly would be authorised to release ANY drawing of John's as a lithograph. The only ones that John personally did in his lifetime were the "Bag One" lithos (I have a set myself). I gave incorrect info the first time when I said "Frontispiece" was the only one. I meant to say "Bag One". "Frontispiece" is the main drawing that is on the "Bag One" litho set, but he did sign all of them. Here's some info on the "Bag One" project: http://www.johnlennon.it/showcase-bag-one-eng.htm. I guess what I'm saying, is if Yoko is in possession of that original drawing of John's, she could re-create it as a lithograph, even if it was something he'd drawn as a child.

As I said before, that particular drawing was from earlier in his career, pre-Yoko. That drawing appeared in an Xmas edition of "In His Own Write". Your expert is also correct that the signatures were certainly done after that print was made. I maintain that particular drawing was never created as a true lithograph, unless it was authorised by Yoko herself. I know John did NOT authorise it. I still doubt the authenticity of the signatures. Beatles signatures are the most forged in the world of celebrity and they have auto-pen machines that are so accurate that even Paul McCartney himself was not able to tell his original from one done by auto-pen. This was an experiment done with him about 15 years ago. John's signature is most certainly a forgery, because this print was released post 12/8/80. I'd still need to see a very clear picture of the signatures to determine if the others are forgeries. I'm going to give you the name and web address of someone who is considered the worlds top authority on Beatles signatures. His name is Frank Caiazzo. Franks website is: http://beatlesautographs.com/. Now...while I personally don't care much for Frank himself, he is very good at what he does. He'll charge you quite a bit of money for his service, but you'll have your answer on the piece for sure. He does this for insurance purposes all the time and I suppose you can write his fee off on your taxes. I truly can't 100% verify Paul, George or Ringo's sigs. I've spent my life studying John's. Yeah, he did sign like that for a very long time, but even if he signed it himself in 1980 before his murder, his signature has already evolved into something that doesn't resemble that at all. That's a very early example of John's sig.

PLEASE keep me posted as to the status of this, I'm really curious what you find out.

Peace,
Pattie
8^)

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Pattie,
If it turns out that the signatures are a forgery on top of the lithograph, would it devalue the piece?  We had talked about having it insured for a certain amount when I first brought the question of this piece up to you several months back.  Would you still stick with that price?

Answer
Hi PJ...

I think I had given a price of around 4K for the drawing (if it's proven to be a true lithograph) if I'm not mistaken. I would think you still could insure it for that much, but yes, unfortunately, forged signatures would take the value away from the piece. How much, well, that's something that Frank Caiazzo could probably tell you, because he's certainly in the business of appraising for insurance purposes. He's a licensed appraiser, and when it comes to things like this, that's what an insurance company will want. I really don't have that much expertise in the area of forged sigs of the other three, only John (although the more I look at the pictures, the less the other three look like genuine signatures). Last night after I answered you, I tried to think of any scenario where this piece might have genuine sigs and the only thing I can think of is "maybe" when that xmas edition of "In His Own Write" was released, they also made some lithographs of the holiday drawing and gave them out as gifts to the "higher ups". Perhaps they could have had all of the Beatles sign them first OR had one of their people, like Mal Evans or Neil Aspinall sign them in their place. Those two lads signed more Beatle items than even the fabs themselves did. It's a long-shot and in all my years of studying the Beatles, I've never heard of this actually happening, but I suppose it's in the realm of possibility. That doesn't explain how it got in the hands of Chelsea Arts for a fairly low price though. Thanks again for your questions. It's certainly one of the more interesting ones I've ever had. I'm so curious myself about that piece and see it as continuing my education as a Beatles/Lennon historian.

Peace,
Pattie
8^)