Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Stamps & Covers
  New Mexico statehood FDC flown on Apollo 14

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   New Mexico statehood FDC flown on Apollo 14
NAAmodel#240
Member

Posts: 312
From: Boston, Mass.
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 05-02-2016 06:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NAAmodel#240   Click Here to Email NAAmodel#240     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Later this month Heritage Auction will offer a New Mexico FDC that Edgar Mitchell purports was flown to the surface of the Moon.

In and of itself, an envelope carried to the Moon is not that unusual. We know of nearly 1,000 that have done so. That 45 years after the event this cover surfaces makes one wonder what else is out there.

A philatelic cover with a block of four 4ยข stamps (Scott #1191), cancelled on January 6, 1962, at Santa Fe, New Mexico, color cachet, unaddressed. Signed on the verso in black felt tip: "Flown to the Lunar Surface/ aboard Antares - February 1971/ Edgar Mitchell". Though born in Texas in 1930, Mitchell moved with his family during the depression to Artesia, New Mexico, where he graduated high school. He considered this his hometown.

Larry McGlynn
Member

Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 05-02-2016 06:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't know who wrote the inscription or signed the cover, but it wasn't Edgar Mitchell. That is not Edgar's signature.

That cover did not fly on Apollo 14. It did not show up on Edgar's copies of the Apollo 14 PPK lists.

The cover should be withdrawn and destroyed by the auction house.

NAAmodel#240
Member

Posts: 312
From: Boston, Mass.
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 05-03-2016 06:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NAAmodel#240   Click Here to Email NAAmodel#240     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks Larry. I suspect as memories fade, handwriting becomes less steady, and provenance becomes more muddled this will only get worse. Then there is the ever present ugly specter of greed.

Larry McGlynn
Member

Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 05-03-2016 08:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This cover is an example of why provenance of flown artifacts is so important. The consignor might have purchased this piece on eBay and got duped. Or, maybe not.

Artifact COA's have been done since the very late 90's and early 2000's. There were the Superior sales prior to that time, but once new auction houses and dealers got into the market, COA's became prevalent and more the norm for flown artifacts.

Without a proper COA and, even better, a photograph of the astronaut holding the object, the item will be always be cast in a skeptical light.

holcombeyates
Member

Posts: 243
From: UK
Registered: Dec 2010

posted 05-04-2016 10:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for holcombeyates   Click Here to Email holcombeyates     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My catalogue arrived yesterday - its a little thin this auction.

This cover does not look right - presumably it should have been signed and possibly numbered shortly after the mission?

Without direct provenance - i.e. a photo or record of where it sold previously I won't be bidding on this.

spaceflori
Member

Posts: 1499
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000

posted 05-05-2016 07:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for spaceflori   Click Here to Email spaceflori     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Larry already outlined the major concerns, but completely aside from any provenance or background in my opinion this is not Mitchell's signature nor handwriting, just examining the writing.

rjurek349
Member

Posts: 1190
From: Northwest Indiana
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-05-2016 11:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for rjurek349   Click Here to Email rjurek349     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Looking at a closeup of the cover, there are a lot of stop and start "blobs" of ink, as if someone was trying to copy it from somewhere slowly, rather than a fluid signature. My other red flag to me: the multiple peaks on the "M" in Mitchell. I'd really have to see more provenance on this before I would go for it -- just doesn't pass the sniff test given above, and the info that Larry has provided. Has anyone heard from Heritage on their thoughts? Were they able to get more provenance on the piece?

freshspot
unregistered
posted 05-06-2016 01:51 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Clearly a candidate for the "Hall of Shame."

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 05-06-2016 02:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Looking over this cover, I don't share the same concerns with Mitchell's handwriting or signature. Indeed, I don't even view this writing as necessarily being atypical. His signature could vary quite significantly and this matches other authentic examples I've seen in the past decade. Additionally, the handwriting is an excellent match for authentic examples as well, with subtle nuance of lettering and structure that are characteristic of Mitchell's writing. As for "stops and starts" in his writing, that isn't necessarily a trait reserved for forgers only. As people age, the ability to write out a smooth-flowing sentence or signature can become more difficult... especially with felt tip marker on paper, where there is higher friction. Mitchell was never the neatest writer and would often write slowly and haltingly.

While all traits of a signature need to be examined and considered, I don't see any red flags here that clearly point in the direction of forgery. Indeed, if this is a forgery, it would be closer to being a "masterful" forgery than being "hall of shame" material.

Regarding the authenticity of the flown status of this cover, that is a more difficult matter to address. Such things can be extremely difficult to prove if there is no record of the item being flown on the PPK inventory. There is a possibility that Mitchell thought the cover was flown (and certified it as such) but was simply mistaken. Astronauts are human too, and are just as prone to mistakes as the rest of us. Perhaps the cover got mixed into Mitchell's flown items over the decades, purely by accident. Additionally, there is a chance that the cover did fly, but was not properly inventoried. We simply may never know.

I do think it's hasty to declare that the cover should be destroyed by the auction house. I personally think further research is warranted... with the auction house working with the consignor (and Mitchell's estate) to establish provenance. It might be prudent to remove the item from the auction in the meantime, since those questions likely cannot be answered before the May 20 auction.

In summary, I think the writing and signature are good, but the concerns over the flown status require further investigation. If the consignor is a cS member or reads these forums, perhaps they can weigh in with what they know about the item.

Larry McGlynn
Member

Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 05-06-2016 03:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In my discussions on this cover with the Mitchell family estate executor, it is agreed that it is not Edgar's handwriting. It is a bad forgery based on the halting way it was completed.

I have known and worked directly with Edgar for the last 18 years. I have witnessed Edgar signing hundreds of items at his home and on the road. The last name, Mitchell, is not how he would end his name if he was tired of signing for the day.

I also know that Edgar had his CM and LM PPK lists and he would check them before he would approve anything as flown. I witnessed that fact too, when he wouldn't sign "as flown" some embroidered patches in his possession until he found the copies of his CM PPK lists. He was pretty thorough about flown objects. So the piece is at best suspect.

The fact that the cover was not listed on his LM PKK list says that the FDC is a fake and should be destroyed.

The research has been done long before my initial post. Also, it is interesting that I have not seen this piece while Edgar was alive and could determine it was not from his collection.

I normally don't post about fraudulent signatures and inscriptions, so this board should know that I don't post these comments lightly.

jtheoret
Member

Posts: 344
From: Albuquerque, NM USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 05-07-2016 02:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jtheoret   Click Here to Email jtheoret     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is a fascinating discussion, especially regarding the authenticity of the handwriting and signature. I personally wouldn't buy this item because of the lack of provenance, especially its absence on his lists (and as a New Mexican believe me when I say I would love to have something like this).

That said, I witnessed Ed signing many hundreds of items for me over the better part of two decades and got many hundreds more through the mail as well as numerous correspondences over the years. He had a variety of styles, sometimes cursive, sometimes printing, and a great variety in signature as well. I have numerous examples that very closely match the writing and signature on the cover and Ed's "typical" writing was often "atypical." He signed some stuff in my car once, for example, that I am very confident folks here would find very suspect and reject outright, and many other times saw him writing very awkwardly.

So bottom line, my concern is the lack of provenance. I agree he wouldn't state it was a flown item unless he sure it was and the fact it doesn't appear on the lists makes it very suspect at the very least. But as far as the writing goes, if it is a forgery, I would tend to agree it is a very good effort, not a poor one.

jonspace
Member

Posts: 169
From:
Registered: Jan 2014

posted 05-07-2016 11:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jonspace   Click Here to Email jonspace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The signature looks odd to me but the inscription looks ok to me. Here is a beta cloth patch that I used to own with one of his inscriptions (verified by Zarelli). It shows some of the stop and go's, and the handwriting looks similar.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement