posted 06-11-2007 10:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by nelyubov:
What about a signature that was created by carbon paper? Is a carbon signature still considered an autograph although it is not the top sheet that was actually signed?

---

That's a good question. I've thought about this myself.

In one way, an autograph is the manual transfer of ink (or another writing material) to a media, such as paper. So the transfer of carbon to a piece of paper through manual means of the signer should technically be an autograph.

However, I suspect the average collector wants the actual sheet of paper that was touched by the signer, containing ink that flowed from a pen that they held.

I'd be very curious to hear other thoughts on this matter.

posted 06-11-2007 01:53 PM               

An autograph is a handwritten mark that is provided by the signer as a souvenir (or in more recent years, as a commodity).

A signature is a handwritten mark that identifies the individual, either for the purpose of establishing his/her agreement, such as with a contract or bank check, or authenticating his/her connection to the medium on which the signature is being added (an example of the latter would be a signed letter).

Thus, not all signatures are autographs.

In the case of the carbon copy, neither the top or bottom signatures would be autographs in my opinion, and only the top (by definition) would be an authentic signature. Th bottom would simply be a copy, as if reproduced by any other means such as a copy machine or scanner.

posted 06-11-2007 02:25 PM               

The issue gets cloudier when talking about content. What about an Armstrong signature just signed "Neil"? Or one of the ones where he's printed his name? What about if it goes off the edge of the page? In each of these cases, you could legitimately call them valid autographs, but personally I wouldn't value them nearly as highly (an example of this - I'm selling a golf autograph on eBay for this very reason: 170120722030).

Interesting topic.

Chris

posted 06-11-2007 02:48 PM               

So does that mean the difference between a signature and an autograph can often times be subjective? Hartsfield signing his full name on the litho is definitely an autograph. His signing the note sounds like a signature by your definition. I can look at that signature and I can regard it as a souvenir making it an autograph to me, but not neccessarily to someone else? I can agree with that.

I do agree that a carbon copy is not a genuine autograph and would see it the same as an autopen or stamp - it is more than one generation from the original.

posted 06-11-2007 02:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
An autograph is a handwritten mark that is provided by the signer as a souvenir (or in more recent years, as a commodity).

---

Not according to a strict definition of the word "autograph." The Webster's Dictionary definition of autograph is:

quote:

---

Main Entry: 1au·to·graph
Pronunciation: 'o-t&-"graf
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin autographum, from Latin, neuter of autographus written with one's own hand, from Greek autographos, from aut- + -graphos written -- more at -GRAPH
: something written or made with one's own hand: a : an original manuscript or work of art b : a person's handwritten signature
- au·tog·ra·phy /o-'tä-gr&-fE/ noun

---

As such, ALL "signatures," as you define them, are a type of autograph. But not all autographs are signatures. A signature on a legal document is still an autograph. Writing "Neil" on a piece of paper is an autograph. Writing "Go away!" on a piece of paper is also an autograph. (Hopefully nobody gets those types of autographs on a regular basis.) Handwriting of any form is technically an autograph.

Granted, collectors will have their own definition of what constitutes an autograph. Many consider signatures given as souvenirs to be the definition of autograph. But the term "autograph" really encompasses ALL handwriting, not just souvenir signatures.

As an extreme example, if I write "Neil Armstrong" on a piece of paper, it's an autograph. Granted, it's *MY* autograph... BUT it's not my signature! It's merely an example of my writing. (It's only a forgery if I try to pass it off as being Neil's autograph.)

Back to the carbon copy question, carbon copy signatures are often used on official documents. Unlike a photocopy, a carbon copy is only applied by the person in question doing the signing. It is not a copy made at a later date but someone else using different means (such as a photocopy, autopen, etc.). If you asked an astronaut to sign a piece of paper for you and he set a piece of carbon paper on top of your item, pressed on top of the carbon paper with a blunt instrument, then left you with the carbon imprint, is that still his signature? After all, the astronaut personally applied that marking on your piece of paper. Does carbon transferring from a paper sheet make that signature any less valid than ink flowing directly from a pen? (Note: I am not questioning the collectability of one versus the other, just the validity of what constitutes an autograph.)

posted 06-11-2007 03:31 PM               

Also, some astronauts have or had different styles reserved for their autographs than for their formal signature. Of course, part of this is to protect themselves from fraud, but it does illustrate a difference.

In Pol's example, I would consider Hartsfield's mark as a signature but not an autograph, as notes are not generally considered gifts or souvenirs. And while this particular example would likely be of little interest to an archivist, other notes signed in similar fashion might be.

posted 06-11-2007 03:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Well, my perspective is based less on the dictionary definition as it is in the applied practice. As a professional archivist once explained to me, there's nothing to be learned from an autograph, but a document with a signature can change the entire way an event in history is understood.

---

My personal perspective (not necessarily based on the dictionary definition) is that all of these are autographs, regardless of whether a signature was applied to a legal document or applied to a photo as a gift. Varying the signing style for one versus the other doesn't change that both are autographs. The archivist may have his own definition of what is each, but he is placing his own personal valuation on what it important and what isn't...and using that, in turn, to go back and define what the item is.

Otherwise, consider an example of a paper note that says "Bill, Thanks for your hard work on the Gemini program. Charles Conrad" Is that an autograph or a signature? Now place the same writing on a photo of a Titan being launched. Is that an autograph or a signature? Is one different than the other, other than the media on which the autograph/signature was applied.

For me, they are both autographs that contain signatures. Sticking to the true definitions of each term is the only way to be consistent with one's terminology...at least in a way that doesn't take into account personal valuations of each item.

Interesting discussion, regardless...

posted 06-11-2007 04:26 PM               

It's odd, though, that we value a signature over historical interest to quite the current degree. It's very common in my experience to see a letter or document go for far less than a corresponding photograph. In collecting historical autographs, a letter with interesting content is usually worth way more than a cut signature - perhaps it's related to the way people want to display items.

posted 06-11-2007 04:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by medaris:
perhaps it's related to the way people want to display items.

---

I think your last point is on the money. Displaying a signed photo of Buzz Aldrin on the moon is more interesting to most people than displaying a letter with content of marginal interest, addressed to someone else. A framed photo is visually more appealing to the average beholder.

I also think we see very few truly historic letters in the space collecting field. Some are interesting for their content, but only rarely does a letter seem to appear on the market that has real historical value for it's content. The Alan Shepard letter to his his parents that sold at R&R a short while ago is a prime example. Note the price it fetched was MUCH more than any signed Shepard photo has likely ever sold for. So I think when a truly historic letter hits the marketplace, the marketplace responds accordingly.

posted 06-11-2007 06:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
So I think when a truly historic letter hits the marketplace, the marketplace responds accordingly.

---

For example, a page from an Apollo 11 checklist with handwriting by Armstrong and Aldrin has traditionally commanded a premium over a similar page with writing by only Armstrong or Aldrin, and both have outperformed pages with no writing, even though all flew on the same mission or even originated from the same parent checklist book.

posted 06-11-2007 11:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
For example, a page from an Apollo 11 checklist with handwriting by Armstrong [b]and Aldrin has traditionally commanded a premium over a similar page with writing by only Armstrong or Aldrin, and both have outperformed pages with no writing, even though all flew on the same mission or even originated from the same parent checklist book.[/B]

---

I think in those instances the writing results in higher prices because the writing demonstrates the page was actually used during the mission, not just part of a manual that went along for the ride (and was only there in case of a contingency).

If one can show that Armstrong or Aldrin took notes on the page while sitting in the LM on the lunar surface, it sure has more appeal (to me, at least) than something they may have never used at all.

But even a modern signature on a flight plan page seems to add value. The signature sort of adds validity to it being a genuine document, especially if the astro makes a notation of such.

posted 06-15-2007 08:36 PM               

Autograph -- generally means “in the hand of” the ‘signer’ of the letter or document or manuscript.

Signed -- implies that the item bears “the signature” of the person whom wrote it in some form, usually written out in descriptive terms or words such as “Harry S. Truman” or “H.S.T”, or “Harry”, etc.

Thus an: Autograph Letter Signed, [ALS] would be a letter in the hand of the person who then signed it.

A Manuscript Letter Signed, [MLS] would indicate that the letter is handwritten, but not necessarily in the hand writing of the person whose ‘signature’ it bears.

A TLS, or Typed Letter Signed, is self explanatory.

Initials, or “squiggles”, or abbreviated signatures as in the “RN” that Nixon used would be described on a typed letter as a: Typed Letter Signed, “RN” on ‘X’ type of stationery. [And here you would define the stationery or paper used. i.e. imprinted White House stationery, or Nixon and Co. Law office stationery, etc.]

So technically, anything that is in the handwriting of a person is an “autograph”, and the “Signed” portion of that autograph should then be further described as to its ‘ form and appearance’.

Much more to say on this but that will have to wait for my edit.

Kind regards, GAJS