|
Title: Interesting legal document Post by: Jay on April 23, 2011, 09:34:22 PM I found this today by accident, and I thought perhaps AGD or somebody could tell whether this is real. http://recordmecca.com/view_item.aspx?id=420
Title: Re: Interesting legal document Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on April 23, 2011, 10:05:29 PM That doesn't look like Carl's signature to me. Not sure about Dennis'. Brian's looks close.
Just my opinion, but that's how it looks to me. Title: Re: Interesting legal document Post by: Jay on April 23, 2011, 10:13:48 PM I have absolutely no knowledge about what their autographes looked like. I just happened to find it totally by accident. ;D
Title: Re: Interesting legal document Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on April 23, 2011, 10:14:59 PM It is a cool find though...I do wonder if it's legit!
Title: Re: Interesting legal document Post by: Jay on April 23, 2011, 10:36:15 PM Having read some of the fine print detail, It's interesting that they seem to have excluded Al.
Title: Re: Interesting legal document Post by: Shane on April 23, 2011, 10:55:43 PM I have a 45 and sleeve from the early 70s that is autographed by the band. The Dennis signature looks almost exactly the same on my 45 as on this document. Carl's looks close as well.
Title: Re: Interesting legal document Post by: GuyO on April 24, 2011, 12:26:10 AM The document looks real to me. The signatures I have are from much later, but it seems reasonable their handwriting evolved.
Alan not being included is logical and is explained in the writing underneath the document. In 1967 Alan was a salaried member of the band: paid per session / concert / photo session, etc. Perhaps he also received a weekly salary. Brian, Carl, Dennis and Mike on the other hand would receive a percentage of sold records (royalties), and of box office gross at shows. The reason for this is the fact that the Beach Boys corporation in 1967 did not include Alan as he was not a member of the group when they formally became a corporation. Alan's signature was added to the contract in 1972 or 73. Am I right? Title: Re: Interesting legal document Post by: Andrew G. Doe on April 24, 2011, 01:10:57 AM That's legit.
Aside from the signatures being 'right', if it was a forgery by anyone except , well, someone like us, they would have included Alan. ;D Title: Re: Interesting legal document Post by: juggler on April 24, 2011, 01:29:08 AM And if it's forgery, they sure did their homework... 9000 Sunset Blvd, Suite 808 (the meeting location mentioned in the letter) just happened to be David Anderle's Brother Records office at the time, according to the May 27, 1967 issue of Billboard...
http://books.google.com/books?id=5icEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA14&dq=%229000%20sunset%22%20%22suite%20808%22&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q=%229000%20sunset%22%20%22suite%20808%22&f=false |