posted 06-27-2007 07:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Space Hunter:
This one looks great but to my untrained eye something curious jumps out at me.

---

posted 06-27-2007 09:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Space Hunter:
something curious jumps out at me.

---

I think 1st impressions are usually good ones. In collecting: there is 'something about' that first 'moment' upon seeing a piece -- that if a collector is truly honest with themselves, -- they will usually make the right decision. ---- It is impossible to make a determination of authenticity on an item that is poorly scanned, shown at an angle, reduced in size, and then put up in 96dpi on a computer screen.

With that said: I would agree that the 'h' appears uncharacteristic, and the crossing of the 't' a bit high. Also the 'E' and 'd' appear to be falling away from each other, rather then a "into" each other as in the inscribed examples, and ALS' I have. Add to this that there appears to be no 'period' after the 'H', and you have a number of interesting points to ponder. Some may think it fine, others not.

I'll leave you with this piece of advice, and my unofficial motto over the last 30+ years when contemplating buying material: "When in doubt, pass". -- This advice, given to me by Paul C. Richards, the most extraordinary brilliant autograph dealer of his day -- bar none, -- has never failed me. It's disappointed me occasionally, and sometimes upon reflection driven me to frustration, --- but it's never failed me.

All the best in whatever you decide, G

Gerard A.J. Stodolski, Inc. - ABAA, PADA, ILAB
Historic Autographs, Rare Books & Manuscripts
Five Chickadee Court
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110
www.gajs.com

posted 06-27-2007 10:51 PM               

IMVHO, what struck me most was the freshness and strength of the signature, for a piece that had to be signed at least 40 years ago to be authentic, the ink is vibrant. It may be very well preserved, but the flair type pens used in that era, from my experience, just don't look that bold forty years later. I've been doing in-person sports since the late 1970's and have alot of football and baseball glossies pre- and early Sharpie, not displayed or having seen light, that just don't look that good.

I'm relatively certain that Sharpies didn't exist then, the purity of the pen looks almost Sharpiesque (if thats a word). That being said, I am in no way saying I think the photo is a fraud, I flat out don't feel qualified to give an expert opinion of that nature. It just looks odd to me.

posted 06-28-2007 11:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by keelerphoto:
it states that theres blemishes all over the photo yet the autograph has no blemishes thus making the autograph newer than stated of 1965

---

This would be a valid argument if the photo (emulsion) and the autograph (ink) were of the same composition. They are not.

FWIW, I don't know this seller and I've never seen this item before, so I have no stake in this at all.

Someone mentioned the "h" being odd. Here is a TLS from 1963 which, to my eye, has a very similar h. Also the capital H has no period:

For reference here is another authentic TLS sig and an authentic signed photo:

Sometimes he put a period after the H and sometimes he didn't. His authentic autograph varied a fair amount. Not as much as Collins', for example, but it did vary.

Regarding ink appearing fresh and new, that can sometimes be a red flag, but not always. If you'll recall the vintage and authentic Harold Hill items which were auctioned on Astro-Auction a few years ago - some (or most) of those looked like they were signed yesterday. Their ink was decades old, but incredibly well-preserved.

I don't know for certain if this is good, but as of now I am completely unconvinced that it is bad. It has many good things going for it, IMO.

An in-person examination would be very helpful.

posted 06-29-2007 08:31 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
But really, none of the evidence presented here so far has convinced me it's a fake.

---

Maybe one should say 'fake'? or 'authentic'? ~~ and that is EXACTLY the point. Unless the "thing" is a total gross distortion of what a signature customarily and characteristically looks like, NO ONE can tell CONCLUSIVELY if an signature is authentic or not, without seeing it and examining it in person. ~~ Anything else is just a guess, and far too much of this material is simply "guessed" at. That is why the Ed White material you'll find in my collection is: his space walk photo with a 5 line inscription, and an ALS on NASA stationery. All the Best, G

Gerard A.J. Stodolski, Inc. - ABAA, PADA, ILAB
Historic Autographs, Rare Books & Manuscripts
Five Chickadee Court
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110
www.gajs.com

posted 06-29-2007 09:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gajs:
... Unless the "thing" is a total gross distortion of what a signature customarily and characteristically looks like, NO ONE can tell CONCLUSIVELY if an signature is authentic or not, without seeing it and examining it in person. ~~ Anything else is just a guess.

---

In your opinion, Gerard. And FWIW, I have seen numerous cases of items examined "carefully in-person" and deemed to be authentic which were blatant forgeries.

Example: There was a terribly flawed online Armstrong study done in the late 90s (I'm not referring here to the study done by Peachstate) which contained about 80% German Armstrongs. The person who authored the study and who deemed them authentic had examined them in-person. The only problem was that this person apparently didn't know Armstrong's autograph very well at all. In another case, a dealer who distributed many German forgeries over the years told me that he'd not noticed anything wrong with them at the time because he'd examined them in-person with a loupe and they looked smooth and flowing, with no apparent hesitation. That's all good and fine, but the problem was that they were a new, distinctive, inauthentic Armstrong style.

99% of authentication depends on the person/people doing the authenticating.

Autographs can be judged with a very high rate of accuracy, given enough study (which never ends) of known-authentic examples, putting heads together and always looking at the "big picture", as Gerry M. has talked about many times.

posted 06-29-2007 11:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott:
...and an authentic signed photo

---