Posts: 184
From: USA
Registered: Nov 2002

Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-02-2007 09:27 AM               

---

Could you please provide some provenance for this? Wasn't it for sale on Ebay recently?

Thx
Paul

Posts: 36
From: Summerfield, NC, USA
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 12-03-2007 12:06 PM               

---

Looks like the one I posted about in October asking for an opinion, thanks for the replies. It was on ebay, here is the link. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230186256474.

It sold for $221.50
Paul

Posts: 1778
From: Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland
Registered: May 2004

Posts: 1778
From: Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland
Registered: May 2004

Posts: 535
From: Atlanta, GA USA
Registered: Nov 1999

Posts: 977
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-04-2007 06:43 PM               

---

I need to make an apology:

I have a photo that is identical, signed by A., bought from Lunarlegacies. When I bought it I thought that this was unique. However, the signature on my photo and on the one offered here are slightly different. I'll try to send a scan of the signature to Robert in a day or two.

Does anybody else have this signed photo, and does anybody know how and when they were signed?

I believe mine is authentic, and Donnis gave me a COA with a guarantee.

Jurg

Posts: 184
From: USA
Registered: Nov 2002

Posts: 36
From: Summerfield, NC, USA
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 12-05-2007 08:38 AM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by machbusterman:
You mean from this thread?

---

Yes, that is the thread. thx.

I was bidding on ebay at the time, unsure of the authenticity I was not willing to go very high. It sold for $221.50. Needless to say, a bargain... if it's real.

Posts: 977
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-06-2007 10:18 AM               

---

Here is a scan of my photo:

The signature is slightly different from the one offered on ebay and above.

Any doubts on the authenticity? As I said I got it from Lunar Legacies in late 1999 or early 2000, and I have a COA from Donnis.

Thanks for any help.
Jurg

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

posted 12-06-2007 03:55 PM               

---

While I certainly could be wrong, I suspect the signature(s) are likely legit. It appears to match his early 90s signature style pretty well. If the two items were forgeries from the same hand, I would almost expect a closer match between the two signatures. As it is, it looks like Armstrong signed both in a hurry.

The fact that you got it from Donnis in 1999 seems to weigh in your favor...both because he has a good reputation and, correct me if I'm wrong, Armstrong forgeries going around at that time weren't this good.

Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001

Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-07-2007 04:46 AM               

---

My only observation - it's surprising how rare a thick, black Armstrong signature is on a personalised WSS litho, or for that matter, nearly any other medium he signed. These 2 signatures differ from each other quite significantly, yet are on the same photo and signed roughly in the same place. That, I find intriguing. Of the two, the second one has more convincing traits, but I'd want provenance with one of these thick marker signatures, rather than just the word of a dealer.

Paul

Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001

Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001

Posts: 977
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Nov 2000

Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001

posted 12-07-2007 10:45 AM               

---

My hunch is that these are both authentic, though like Paul I feel a bit more comfortable with the bottom one. The fat black marker is indeed an atypical writing instrument for Armstrong. Authentic Armstrongs in wide marker do exist, but they are not common at all. He had/has a definite affinity for fine-point writing instruments (and thank goodness for that).

I wonder if these may have ever had a personalization. What a shame it would be if these had a personalization and it was washed at some point. It can be argued that these are examples that would be more desirable with a personalization.

To reference a comment Mark made, if it can just be proven that these 2 signed items already were in existence ca. 1999, then that IMO would go a very long way to proving they are authentic. These do not resemble the work of the German master forger at that time and forgeries (especially non-German ones) simply did not look this good that long ago.

While the fat marker makes it much more difficult to authenticate these, IMO they both do display a good number of authentic traits. As Mark mentions, the top one does resemble an early-90s authentic style, albeit a seldom seen one. Like Paul I am somewhat curious why the styles are a bit dissimilar, but they may have been signed at different times.

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

posted 12-07-2007 11:43 AM               

---

In case people are interested, there are three examples of circa-1993 signatures on Tony's website (referenced in this thread), where he is selling Neil-signed X-15 photos. Authenticity of these signatures is not questionable, since Neil signed these photos as part of the signing done to benefit the Flight Test Historical Foundation.

The interesting thing to note is that all three signature have significant differences in appearance, even though all three were likely signed on the same day. Anyway, these are good exemplars of how Neil was signing, circa 1993.

Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001

posted 12-07-2007 12:14 PM               

---

Mark,

Thanks for that link! It is interesting how the multisigned 11x14's Armstrong somewhat resembles the signature on the top color photo (in this thread) and the multisigned 8x10's Armstrong somewhat resembles the signature on the bottom color photo. The underscore on the top color photo's signature (on this page) is unusual-looking but authentic underscore aberrations such as this do exist. It appears to be very likely that both of these examples are authentic (IMO).

Posts: 977
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-07-2007 12:25 PM               

---

Some background on mine, the second photo:

When the book "Full Moon" by Michael Light came out in 1999, Harrison Schmitt signed some books at the bookstore "Page One" here in Albuquerque, and I bought quite a few. I traded some of these signed books with Donnis Willis at Lunar Legacies at the end of 1999 or early 2000. I asked him only in 2003 for a COA, it is dated 2003.

I personally have no doubt on the authenticity since I have dealt with Donnis since the early 1990's, and I have always trusted him with my life. I have talked to him in person about Armstrong's signature, and he mentioned that he has seen hundreds if not thousands of them, and that he can tell a real one from a fake.

In short, I have been in possession of this photo for close to 8 years. Also, the signature itself has some traits that I recognize from other signatures. Of course I was not there when these were signed.

Jurg

Posts: 977
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Nov 2000