posted 06-15-2008 07:09 PM            

$828

To my novice eye, it looks real. Comments?

posted 06-16-2008 08:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Also, my personal opinions on this particular signature are not favorable. I asked a few well-respected collectors about this signature off-list and they are in agreement: there is a good chance this signature is a forgery.

---

posted 06-16-2008 10:58 PM               

If you are happy with the provenance Dave provided and feel it's a signature that you can live with, that's a decision you ultimately need to make for yourself.

In the future, I highly recommend you seek opinions BEFORE bidding on auctions. It appears you bought this item at 15:35 PDT and then posted this thread at 17:50 CST (15:50 PDT). Note that, in the item description, David was the first person to say "Research first, bid later please."

posted 06-16-2008 11:48 PM               

A large part of my decision to purchase after doing what research I could (comparing to every Exemplar and Relics) was indeed because of WHO was selling it, knowing that David has unquestionably more knowledge and expertise than I do and would not knowingly resell something bad. Too often requests for opinions get few replies for the "good" stuff, only to see the experts scoop it up. But that is another issue.

On this, I expected that if David had any question as to it's authenticity, he would be upfront and say that he "had concerns." I did search and read through most of his posts and related discussion to see if there was anything questionable about his reputation, and found nothing. I took phrases like and "no guarantees, "no returns" as simply his way of trying to keep the non-serious bidders away.

What I would love to understand is why you or others feel that it could be a forgery. What are the elements that bother you? I honestly don't see it. Are the strokes wrong, the slant? I don't see any real hesitation compared to what I would consider atypical elements in several of the "good" examples...

posted 06-17-2008 01:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikeh:
What I would love to understand is why you or others feel that it could be a forgery. What are the elements that bother you? I honestly don't see it. Are the strokes wrong, the slant? I don't see any real hesitation compared to what I would consider atypical elements in several of the "good" examples...

---

To me, the proportions, orientations, and shapes of some of the letters/strokes appear off. The provided resolution of the scan isn't good enough to assess hesitation or pen speed, but assuming no hesitation, I'd still have enough problems with the signature that I personally wouldn't want to own it.

On another note, I noticed you removed the mention of the Lee Atwood provenance from your previous post. Any reason for that?

posted 06-17-2008 01:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikeh:
Too often requests for opinions get few replies for the "good" stuff, only to see the experts scoop it up. But that is another issue.

---

You seem to want the "experts" to do all the work for you and at the same time to abstain from bidding themselves. The buying and selling of collectibles is not some sort of altruistic pursuit, nor do the experts monitor each and every opinion that is asked for. I don't regard myself as an "expert" but I have built up my own knowledge bank over the years through research, advice and, unfortunately, by making one or two mistakes in the early days.

I'm glad David refunded you and knowing him I wouldn't expect anything less. I would not be comfortable with this example.

posted 06-17-2008 03:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
I'm glad David refunded you and knowing him I wouldn't expect anything less. I would not be comfortable with this example.

---

Pleased it worked out for all concerned (and all due credit to David) and to anyone with an ounce of intelligence, it's obvious you at least did some homework.

If you "seemed" to draw a direct line between the absence of board comment to your question regarding a signed piece, to a request that the person solicited for advice abstain from bidding, I can't see any references to that in your messages... and if this site is NOT an avenue to which you can turn toward for opinion, then heaven help us all... especially those searching for an elusive Armstrong.

posted 06-17-2008 05:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSpace86:
I don't think I have ever signed something identical ever in my life, no matter how much I try.

---

Good job you are not an astronaut. Your signatures would for ever fall foul of the experts!

posted 06-17-2008 06:41 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by poofacio:
Good job you are not an astronaut. Your signatures would for ever fall foul of the experts!

---

It's really bad form to discuss an individual person by name who is not taking part in the discussion (unless I missed it), especially if it was a business arraignment if there was nothing suspect in their transaction.

The seller posted what they new, he was totally honest. He shared the information he knew, he has a reputable background, he told bidders to do their homework. What more can the guy do?

Now, google, yahoo or altavista, etc will pick this conversation up and in the future if someone is thinking of buying form the gentleman they'll see that his authenticity was being questioned and probably not read the whole thread but just snippets.

posted 06-17-2008 10:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
Or self proclaimed experts!

---

Who in this discussion has proclaimed themselves an expert?

My own opinion about the signature was not favorable. But, since I personally don't view myself as an "expert" (let alone publicly claim that I am), I collected at least four other opinions about the signature (which were all strongly non-favorable), from people I respect, before posting my opinion here on CS. I suspect that's more "homework" than anyone else here has bothered to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
It's really bad form to discuss an individual person by name who is not taking part in the discussion (unless I missed it), especially if it was a business arraignment if there was nothing suspect in their transaction.

---

There was nothing suspect, except for the authenticity of the signature, the private auction status, and the no return policy.

The buyer was the first person to identify the seller by name on this forum. I would have been just as happy to leave the seller's name out of the discussion, had that been an option.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
What more can the guy do?

---

Stand behind his product and run an open auction. (To David's credit, he did refund Mike's money. He certainly didn't have to do that, since the terms of his auction were clear.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
Collectors of this hobby are going to find many more autographs without a paper history than you will with a provable history.

---

If you collect atypical-looking autographs without some sort of provenance, then yes, you should expect problems later when it comes time to re-sell them.

posted 06-17-2008 12:56 PM            

So for the neo-collector, I see options:

1) Buy from a known, well respected dealer. Pay through the nose, but have a good sense of the authenticity. The well respected dealer has lots to loose. Especially if they hang around here.

2) Rummage eBay (RR, Aurora, etc..). Who knows what you are getting. I surely don't have the knowledge. If I make a post asking about an item, that calls the attention to the item.

As someone suggested in a previous post, I would gladly give some space authentication expert (ie: Scott C) $50-100 to provide a detailed opinion.

posted 06-17-2008 11:49 PM               

I do, however, request that we as a community please show some restraint in attacking those who seek to voice their opinion on items being questioned.

I’ve observed and have had confirmed that this board has become silent recently because many of the most knowledgeable collectors are fed up with the attacks on their credibility. As was indicated, this only benefits the forgers or those sellers who seek to deceive.

If this hobby is to survive, if newer collectors (such as myself) are to be encouraged to love and learn about this field, then we need to work together to educate us all, and to identify questionable items coming to market.

One only has to look to recent auctions to see that far too many suspect items are popping up in (formerly) reliable venues. This is not the time to back away, but to more actively work to weed them out. We need to listen to *as many opinions as possible* (both pro and con) to better assess authenticity.

For example, there are dozens of A11, NA and other items on the R&R auction now. Without Scott (or apparently anyone with specialized Space knowledge) doing the authentication, this venue has become much more risky. Yet, cS is extremely quite. I would have expected to see pages of opinions and discussion on some of those items. We need MORE opinions and discussion, not less.

I truly appreciate those who voice their opinions, and respectfully ask that those long-time collectors who have become silent please help us newer collectors by voicing more of your opinions in the future.

posted 06-18-2008 01:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by b55er:
2) Rummage eBay (RR, Aurora, etc..). Who knows what you are getting. I surely don't have the knowledge. If I make a post asking about an item, that calls the attention to the item.

---

posted 06-18-2008 08:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
If you collect atypical-looking autographs without some sort of provenance, then yes, you should expect problems later when it comes time to re-sell them.

---

Your not going to find any White, Chaffee, Grissom or probably any Armstrong with a 100% provable provenance as when these gentleman were signing there was no real value to their autographs. Many of the autographs out there are the same type as the above people. No clear path. Any provenance will simply state obtained through the mail, or at a chicken dinner circuit speaking engagement. That is worth little.

quote:

---

Perhaps the question to put to CSers is this: Do you want advice from fellow collectors about signature authenticity or not? I think it's funny that Mike asked for opinions on the item that he purchased (and b55er also asked for comments about), then people criticize the so-called "self-proclaimed experts" who bothered to respond to Mike's (and b55er's) request.

---

quote:

---

It's no wonder most of the experienced collectors are keeping their mouths shut these days (...which I suspect makes the forgers REALLY happy).

---

posted 06-18-2008 11:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
Your not going to find any White, Chaffee, Grissom or probably any Armstrong with a 100% provable provenance as when these gentleman were signing there was no real value to their autographs.

---

My argument was about buying atypical signatures without provenance. If you're going to buy an expensive signature without provenance, then does it make sense to buy ones that are also atypical in appearance?

Regarding provenance, however, I have purchased Whites and Grissoms from former NASA employees...either directly or through consignment at major auction houses. Unless these former NASA employees were also highly skilled forgers, I have a high degree of confidence in these pieces. (On edit: there are also lots of Grissom signed checks on the market too, with great built-in provenance.)

With Armstrong, there are the Sieger stamps, art prints (Naval Aviation in Space, Navy to the Moon, etc.), and the Flight Test Historical Foundation Prints...all with solid provenance.

Also, the notion of 100% perfect provenance is a fallacy unless you personally witnessed the item being signed...and the perfect provenance is lost as soon you pass the item along to someone else. Even the best documented item that you never saw being signed is not going to have 100% perfect provenance. The idea, however, is to obtain provenance that approaches perfection as closely as possible...or, at a minimum, eliminates most doubts about the signature in question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
What happens if someone actually drops $2k on the say so of legitimacy from people here and it is identified as a forgery when they go to sell it in a few years? Who's liable then?

---

Who's liable? How about the person who created and/or sold the forgery in the first place? Are we forgetting them in this equation?

The way I see it, if someone comes on a forum like CS and asks for free advice on a signature, they can't suddenly make the advice-giver liable for any mistakes unless the advice-giver knowingly mis-led the buyer of the item.

Advice and opinions given freely should simply be meant only to guide one's purchase and help them avoid making a bad purchase. Even the most knowledgeable advice-givers can make mistakes...even when collecting for themselves. Sometimes well-executed forgeries only become known after a certain trend/trait/pattern is spotted for a duration of time on the marketplace.

Ultimately, the buyer must weigh their own knowledge, the advice they receive, and the information the seller provides, in order to decide how to spend their own money. In the end, the buyer is taking on the responsibility for spending their money wisely. For example, if I take my friend's advice in buying a new car, I don't turn around and send my friend every repair bill when that car breaks down (even if I'm tempted to!).

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
Opinions are cheap when they don't cost you anything and asking for opinions are cheap when you want free advise.

---

posted 06-18-2008 03:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by machbusterman:
...pretty sad as there ARE genuine people in this hobby that like to and CAN help others.

---

On edit: I have been on travel the past few days, and so haven't had a chance to carefully read this thread or others until now. I think there are three key points here:

1. If you choose to be a hobbyist seller, or an authenticator, then you are placing your reputation on the line for all to discuss, for better or for worse. There was nothing wrong about Mike mentioning the seller's and/or authenticator's name. In fact, though it shouldn't be the deciding factor when determining authenticity, knowing the source can and often does play a role. For artifacts and autographs, there is no such thing as a 'blind taste test'.

2. Those who do offer opinions need to be ready to hear from "both sides of the coin," those that agree with them and those that don't. No one should ever be criticized for offering an opinion, but at the same time, no one should feel offering an opinion hinges on expressions of gratitude. The 'thank you' is more than often implied.

3. I think Mark hit the nail on the head when he wrote that ultimately, no one's opinion matters more than your own. No one is ever going to give you the peace of mind if every time you look at the autograph, you have a lingering doubt. It doesn't matter who says it is "good" or "bad", if you cannot resolve that for yourself, you may want to consider it as a sign that you are not ready to make that particular purchase.

posted 06-18-2008 07:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Those who do offer opinions need to be ready to hear from "both sides of the coin," those that agree with them and those that don't. No one should ever be criticized for offering an opinion,

---

But should this immunity from criticism be extended to someone who takes it upon themselves to contact an ebay buyer (who has never heard of collectSPACE) after an auction has finished and imply (but not state) that the signatures are in his opinion suspect when the signatures in question were, (unbeknown to him) in fact obtained at Novaspace signings with photographic provenance? I personally do not think that is someone who is trying to help, I think it is the actions of an inept busybody.

Being asked for an opinion and giving it is an act of kindness and beyond reproach. Acting like a vigilante and getting it wrong is bang out of order. The vigilante knows who he or she is so I shall say no more.

A novice is in a bit of a chicken and egg situation really, if he does not have the experience to spot an "iffy" signature he is unlikely to have the experience to spot an "iffy" opinion giver however well intentioned that opinion giver may be.

Also IMO opinion givers should not sit on the fence. Autopens, secretarials and preprints apart a signature is either right or it is wrong. It is like saying someone is a bit pregnant. I think vague criticisms can be quite damaging to a genuine example that may be just atypical. Would it not be better to just say, with reasons "it is bad" "it is good" or just shut up?

posted 06-18-2008 07:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by poofacio:
...when the signatures in question were, (unbeknown to him) in fact obtained at Novaspace signings with photographic provenance?

---

posted 06-18-2008 07:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Why wouldn't the seller include the photographic provenance and the source of the autograph in the auction description?

---

Simply because they were unaware of it, they just bought it in good faith and weren't given it. After being attacked they quite rightly went back and queried it.

However surely that is irrelevant? Are you saying that had the vigilante seen the provenance they would have refrained from contacting them? If so I have no doubt you are 100% correct. Even I have no problem reaching a considered and reasoned appraisal of a signature with a Novaspace provenance!

I really do not see that their actions can be defended on the grounds that the seller should have had the provenance. Also it is against ebay rules but I suppose they would justify their immunity from obeying rules by deciding that as it was for the "greater good" and in the public interest.

Fine, but they got it wrong. That is a risk a vigilante takes. Kill a forgery and they are a hero. kill an innocent signature, simply a murderer.

posted 06-18-2008 11:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by poofacio:
Also IMO opinion givers should not sit on the fence. Autopens, secretarials and preprints apart a signature is either right or it is wrong. It is like saying someone is a bit pregnant.

---

posted 06-19-2008 07:34 AM               

A couple of years ago one of my large customers purchased a very expensive autographed item from a dealer who in my opinion sold very questionable items (not space-related), the item in questions being one of them. I called him and tried to subtly share my opinion, which prompted him to politely tell me to mind my own business and that he knew what he was doing. Ever since then I let people do their own homework and concentrate on making sure my own items are thoroughly vetted.

Getting back on topic, to criticize David for holding a private auction in unfounded, especially given his very clear and specific description of the autograph history. Regardless of your opinion on the signature, David was very clear with the risks associated with purchasing the item.

And regarding people not being thankful or appreciative of the opinions offered, I do not think that is the case. Most issues I have seen resulted from the commentary or sarcasm that came with the opinions, not the opinions themselves. I think the lack of commentary is what made Scott so popular (at least with me).

posted 06-19-2008 12:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikelarson:
Getting back on topic, to criticize David for holding a private auction in unfounded, especially given his very clear and specific description of the autograph history.

---

posted 06-19-2008 03:50 PM               

Before they came into mainstream usage (eg on Astro-Auction), private auctions were associated with the desire of known forgers to protect themselves from having a potential buyer of a forgery tipped off by someone more knowledgable. Personally I would never use private auction - especially not if I couldn't provide any provenance or guarantee with the item being sold.

posted 06-19-2008 04:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
the desire of known forgers to protect themselves from having a potential buyer of a forgery tipped off by someone more knowledgable.

---

The buyer has every opportunity to ask whoever he wants, a lot of valid opinions are out there to be had. IMO there is a world of difference between the majority of great folk on Cs and in the hobby who are only to happy and willing to give their expert opinions and those who are champing at the bit to air their "expert opinions" on anything and everything 24/7.

That is my experience anyway.

posted 06-20-2008 07:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
I use private auctions to protect myself against other sellers hijacking auctions to offer high bidders a similar item at a lower price. This has happened to me on Astro-Auction in the past.

---

posted 06-20-2008 02:37 PM               

It's been years since I've entered a discussion on this wonderful site, cS, but thought I'd chime in.

Several years ago I attempted to sell a B&W image of the LLTV signed by Armstrong originally acquired from a 100% ethical and knowledgeable source. What I found in this case and similar ones is that those that who think an item is questionable always seem to speak up publicly but those who find it authentic often tend to contact you privately NOT publicly.

Why is this? I believe it's because those who agree with your assessment of authenticity are shy from publicly saying so because, like it or not, debates get heated and often very personal in these forums.

On top of that those who think an item NOT authentic almost never say why they came to that conclusion. Now I know sometimes your "gut" just screams STAY AWAY after view a signature and you're not quite sure why. I understand that but it's your duty to explain to the best of your ability why YOU think an item is less than as described.

In my case I actually had more private defenders of the LLTV piece than those who publicly said "false". Since it does no good, and in my opinion, not a valid argument to say that and because I grew tired of defending the item I canceled the auction and kept the piece... you can still view it in my collection.

Debate is good folks but it is your responsibility to go beyond saying:

"Also, my personal opinions on this particular signature are not favorable. I asked a few well-respected collectors about this signature off-list and they are in agreement: there is a good chance this signature is a forgery."

I think it should be a requirement on any public forum that a publicly voiced opinion concerning an items authenticity, pro or con, MUST BE SUPPORTED BY HOW YOU CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION. AND if you're going to use other's opinions to support yours THEIR NAMES MUST BECOME PART OF THE DISCUSSION and even then it's nothing but hearsay unless they come forward themselves.

It's easy to say "19 experts think this authentic" or "16 long time collectors think this forged" yet we never hear the names. If they don't want their opinions known publicly by name then YOU can't use those opinions to support yours.

That's my opinion... Wayne Edelman.

posted 06-20-2008 03:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by astronut:
I think it should be a requirement on any public forum that a publicly voiced opinion concerning an items authenticity, pro or con, MUST BE SUPPORTED BY HOW YOU CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION. AND if you're going to use other's opinions to support yours THEIR NAMES MUST BECOME PART OF THE DISCUSSION and even then it's nothing but hearsay unless they come forward themselves.

---

You want to make requirements about how we state personal opinions on a public forum? Really?

I came to my conclusion because the signature didn't appear to look like the authentic exemplars I have viewed over the past years. Letter shapes and orientations appeared "off." In the absence of any notable provenance to eliminate doubts, I had to conclude the signature was either a forgery...or it has enough problems that it's not a wise investment. I stated this as my "personal opinion." I supported my opinion by getting the advice of others. I haven't heard a strong argument so far, from anyone, supporting the authenticity of this piece. I would be happy to be proven wrong on this one.

Also, I didn't cite my other sources that backed up my personal opinion because I asked for their opinions before I even noticed this thread on CS. It wouldn't be fair for me to include their names in this discussion if I didn't reveal my intentions to make their thoughts public and get permission from each of them first. (For the same reason, etiquette says it's never wise to make personal e-mails public without the consent of all parties.) I only cited their opinions to demonstrate that I was not being reckless about giving my negative opinion on this item.

quote:

---

Originally posted by astronut:
Several years ago I attempted to sell a B&W image of the LLTV signed by Armstrong originally acquired from a 100% ethical and knowledgeable source.

---

Ethical and knowledgeable sources can still be wrong. How many knowledgeable collectors were fooled by Peachstates, first2themoons, and the German forgeries? How many ethical collectors still have suspect signatures within their collection that they don't know about?

posted 06-20-2008 04:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by astronut:
Several years ago I attempted to sell a B&W image of the LLTV signed by Armstrong originally acquired from a 100% ethical and knowledgeable source.

---

posted 06-20-2008 06:44 PM               

You comment allowed me to comment on:

1) Making unsupported statements as to an item's authenticity...all the details you can give us help us all become more knowledgable collectors, PLUS it allows us insite as to your reasoning. It's easier to debate a comment if I know what drove that comment. You were not alone in this it's constant on these pages & others.

2) Using unrevealed sources to back your opinion. I know that I myself have done this in the past. I now feel this is not only wrong but weakens your side of the argument... it just sounds made up no matter how true a statement of fact.

Bob I think you've forgotten that old debate, or hell maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I believe all was revealed then. No matter it was Joe Davies.

I was not intending to dredge up, to restart, that old, very heated debate. I just felt it better to use a personal example instead of an example of the hundreds of honest collectors crucified here and on other forums... some with good reason, but many innocent completely though. Crucified with UNSUPPORTED NEGATIVE OPINION or even more sadly with UNREVEALED EXPERT SOURCES.

We need thoughtful opinion in all forums, but when you color someone's opinion of another with unsupported opinion of your own or secret opinions of others I think it clouds the debate.

So if you have a valid opinion please try to share your thought processes as it makes us all better informed collectors and just leave out the unnamed sources and let your opinions stand on their own merit. And most importantly always stay out of the personal arena... personal attacks are unneeded.

Again Mr/Ms mjanovec please forgive me if you took my stated opinions as an attack on you.