posted 05-06-2012 07:01 PM               

• STS-114: eBay item 140745960053
  
• STS-116: eBay item 140745959641

posted 05-07-2012 08:43 PM               

• STS-103: eBay item 130692050346
  
• STS-112: eBay item 140748979517

posted 05-08-2012 08:06 AM               

The STS-100 he offers looks like a classic perfect in-person signed photo, different pens, usually thicker sharpies, a clear and strong writing — but I personally would not go for any of the four photos either.

Even in the worst signing situations people rather tend to leave away letters... Sandra Magnus must have forgotten her name "Sandra Mongnus"... Claude Nicollier has signed for me in-person, but never that ugly. Other signatures also appear to have extra loops and letters.

Knowing the in-person signatures of those folks from a fellow in Houston (often sold and offered in Regency Superior for comparison) I also see significant differences.

posted 05-08-2012 12:56 PM               

These all come from the gentleman Ken referred to and Ken knows a lot more about this than me. I agree the Magnus looks a bit odd - I didn't notice that extra squiggle. On the other hand, the unusually thick pen used in many of the signatures can fool the eye at times making all distinctive twists, stops, turns and pen speeds look a lot more alike and thus from the same hand. I have quite a few examples of that effect and it seems the thick pen was this man’s instrument of choice when getting things signed.

What is done is a situation like this? The source is good for sure and the irregularity in some of the signatures can be explained by how they were obtained. On the other hand, some of the signatures are simply irregular and may be tough to convince future buyers of their authenticity.

As an example, recently a Roosa signature I sold someone, on a multi-signed photo, came into question from a space autograph expert authenticating the signature, and he declared it not genuine, even though I obtained the signature in person myself at the 25th anniversary in Houston. I walked up to Roosa, he signed it in a smallish space, and now it is deemed by an expert as not genuine. Signatures can have all sorts of variations depending on the signing circumstances.

Maybe these signatures in question are bad - I wasn't there, but judging from the source (Ken via the original owner), very probably they are good, but just look bad. So what do you do?

posted 05-08-2012 03:32 PM               

I personally do have a problem with many signatures of the crew signed later shuttle lithos on your website indeed. I do not think the 107 is good either.
I also haven't followed the later shuttle astronaut signatures too close lately, so hopefully some others will post here as well, just going by basic autograph judging something tells me that there is something wrong. I believe to recognize a certain pattern among many autographs (some could be authentic, of course).

For example German Hans Schlegel on STS-122: I have about 50 or more in-person samples here from him, all from the STS-122 mission plus many more from his earlier flight and NONE of them were signed that sloppy or drawn like here. He did sign so many items in Cologne at the open house, while eating, walking, running, talking, speaking but none of them were so badly drawn. He just doesn't sign like that.

Also I see a significant different "level" (excuse my English) of letters in many signatures, even in a rush you don't sign sloppy like that, you "swallow" or forget letters, make bold and hectic signatures (like Story Musgrave does in-person) but you don't draw like a child.

Again this is my personal opinion and I would love to hear the opinion of Richard Stonely who should have in-person samples of all these crews.

posted 05-08-2012 05:19 PM               

1. The almost identical top loop in the "L" of Lawrence (STS-114), the "L" in Sunni L. Williams (STS-116), and the "S" in Steve Smith (STS-103). They are all very close in form.

2. The top loop in the "D" of Dave Wolf (STS-112). Have never seen this.

3. The autographs appear to be signed slow and deliberate and not with a typical fluid motion. The Polansky (STS-116) shows several pauses and ink dots. Halfway through the "M" at the bottom, a dot after the "l" and two dots at the top of the "y".

posted 05-08-2012 09:45 PM               

However, all questionable shuttle crew-signed photo lots have been hidden from the auction site until a time at which in kind replacements may be found, so everyone please check them out as well if or when they do appear again. Luckily, less than half a dozen in this bad batch were sold elsewhere, and the buyers have all been emailed tonight for a full refund or possible replacement if a suitable one can be found.

posted 05-09-2012 06:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Havekotte:
While many of the provided signatures do appear atypical, more will be posted here later, along with a statement and bio from the autograph source referred to in this topic.

---

posted 05-10-2012 11:12 AM               

My eyes are completely open now, and believe me, I will NEVER let my guard down again! Even if Neil Armstrong himself came up to me and wanted my firm to purchase space items from him — always — check everything carefully before a purchase is decided upon.

When acquiring so many shuttle crew signed lithos from my new well-known space friend here at Kennedy (first in June 2011), I had simply put them aside in their binders on top of a shelf and never really examined them closely, until just recently!

For my good friend Donnis Willis of Lunar Legacies (along with his lovely wife Jan), I want to extend a full and sincere heart-felt apology. Don had recently acquired many of the signed photos in question from me. I had failed to examine them carefully — not even at all — before a transaction had been agreed between us. I am so sorry for that!

I have just gotten back from a meeting at the Kennedy Space Center with my primary source that had provided me with the signed photos during two major transactions.

I am happy to report that a full restitution was provided to me "on the spot" so-to-speak with my complete satisfaction in order to "close the case."

In short, I was told that he had purchased many of the pictures from someone else. While some of the provided signatures were indeed obtained by him in person at a certain facility here, many others had not been, he openly confessed.

I was led to believe that all of the acquired autographs by recent shuttle crews were signed for him while crew mmebers reported in and out of his work station area.

As was noted in an earlier post, the individual is a well-known and highly-respected flight ops. team official. He knows on a personal friendship and works almost on a daily basis with just about all of the active shuttle astronauts.

It would be best not to reveal his name, as advised, for many reasons.

Once again, let me deeply apologize to anyone that has been effected in anyway concerning the shuttle crew signed photos referred to here.

Already, immediate refunds are being provided, and in full with complete satisfaction required.

This has been a valuable lesson to me, indeed, in working with aerospace memorabilia in nearly 45 years as an avid space enthusiast, collector, specialist, consultant, vendor and authenticator.

posted 05-11-2012 12:31 AM               

At the end however the whole issue just reveals another general problem I have often warned of: Collectors often ask about provenance, chain of ownership etc. - keep in mind that any background story can be as easily faked as a COA on paper!

You may have a chain of ownership with some items, you may know when and for how much a $100 million Picacco painting may have sold in the past 100 years, but for most space collectibles there is no chain of ownership possible or even more important — easily to confirm and verify.

It doesn't mean however that the (original) seller like in this case may have bad intentions... not at all. He may have simply just forgot to mention something or didn't remember the source at all which — especially with older items residing in your collection for decades — is not a necessarily a bad sign but simply a human nature.