posted 10-25-2011 03:06 AM               

I have Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin with this actually in their hands on photos once they had signed it and was signed at Novaspace in the USA so I'm 100% confident on these.

The Armstrong I purchased eight years ago from a doctor but never at the time asked the history of where and when signed. The note paper has "dreams thoughts aspirations" written through it.

posted 10-25-2011 05:10 PM               

At this point, I don't really think most COAs add all that much value anyway, for what it's worth.

posted 10-26-2011 04:56 AM               

At the risk of repeating some of Mike's points above, here are some of the things that stand out to me:

• The first stroke of the signature - the left side of the N - should be short bold and bowing out to the right in the middle. Instead this one is hesitant, weak, and wobbles up the page.
  
• The end of the right side of the "N" finishes with a huge hook. I don't recall every seeing any noticeable hook at the end of this stroke in a genuine Armstrong signature.
  
• The "eil" is misshapen and the "e" in particular is gigantic.
  
• There are sharp hooks on the end of both the upstroke and continuation of the "A" at upper left.
  
• The low cross-stroke of the "A" stretches across to the right out past the "g" of Armstrong and ends in some kind of hesitant blob. I have never seen this line reach further than just touching the "g".
  
• The "t" cross stroke ends with a hook, something I've never seen in an Armstrong signature.
  
• The "t..g" of the "Armstrong" has a marked hesitant wobble out to the right before it descends.
  
• The low point of the tail is usually curved, occasionally pointed, but I've never seen one double back on itself at the point as this one does.
  
• The left end of the flourish should be a smooth curve, after all a flourish is produced in a fast smooth stroke by the signer. This one shows a hesitant wobble at the end before it doubles back.
  
• Worse still, the flourish should curve down to the left and then come back across below the first part of the stroke. Very occasionally the line comes back at the same level but it almost never bends up instead of down as this one has.
  
• The final right stroke of the flourish should sweep across under the signature in one smooth stroke. This one wobbles around, and becomes thicker as it appears to be drawn out slower as it goes.

This autograph starts hesitant, adds odd hooks as flourishes where there should be none, hesitates wherever a 'tricky' bit of the signature comes up, and goes slowly where it should be sweeping across the page.

posted 10-26-2011 05:45 AM               

Both of these are auction houses and this gets back to my original question who would get the final say on what is real and what is not from a collectors view on this website?

I understand a company or the name Scott Cornish was the No. 1 on Armstrong autographs but I have seen here on collectSPACE he know longer authenticates items and heard some comments on the authenticity of items from here too.

PSA DNA I understand are sports authenticators?

My own thoughts are my original ones when I purchased it.

1. My immediate gut feeling when very first seen, normally the most accurate authentication in my opinion.

2. Very unlikely to forge a autograph on notepaper more money to be made on a Armstrong WSS

3. Bonhams noted it did not match any known forgeries from their database.

4. I think the angle of the autograph looks good and matches up and to me looks constant forgers would hesitate to look back and reapply the pen giving a wobbly effect.

5. The autograph is not a autopen so shows pressure points of the ink and these I think match.

posted 10-26-2011 07:08 AM               

Bonhams have no particular expertise in space autographs, to my knowledge, nor does Sothebys.

Scott is indeed a true expert on space autographs, and on Armstrong in particular, but there are other experts who I hope will chip in here with their opinions.

To your other points:

1. I agree entirely, and my gut feeling was that this one is all wrong.

2. I would say that the majority of Armstrong forgeries are on items other than WSS lithos. Vintage photos, newspapers, magazines, index cards, stained and torn scraps of old paper... I've seen forgeries on all kinds of media. They may not be so valuable to sell but they have the advantage of being cheap, easy to practice on, and of attracting less critical attention when they sell.

3. There are a couple of common Armstrong forgery styles but many are one-offs.

4. The angle may be fine but the autograph shows hesitation throughout in my opinion.

5. Agreed, it's not an Autopen.

quote:

---

I do agree there are many oddities but having looked at all the genuine examples on this website its hard to find two the exact same, all have differences I think.

---

posted 10-26-2011 08:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikelan777:
Very unlikely to forge a autograph on notepaper more money to be made on a Armstrong WSS

---

Forging on notepaper and index cards is the easy way to go. You have a never ending supply to "get some close signatures". If the signature doesn't look good, or you make a mistake, you just start over again on a new sheet or card.

You are correct in saying that if you forge a WSS it will be worth more money. But, unless you have an unlimited supply of WSS's, you could go through your whole supply without getting a decent signature.

posted 10-26-2011 03:20 PM               

Many of the anomalies noted could be accounted for if this was signed on a bumpy surface, especially if the signature was rushed. Further, there's currently an Armstrong WSS on eBay (#320779898229) that shows many anomalies, but which I believe is clearly and unquestionably an authentic piece nonetheless.

posted 10-26-2011 04:36 PM               

By contrast I would go as far as to say that in the Armstrong being discussed above there is not one element that matches a genuine Armstrong signature.

Every single stroke of the pen shows anomalies. The three strokes of the "N", the "eil", all three strokes that make up the "A", the cross-stroke of the "t", the "g", and the flourish all have major flaws.

posted 10-26-2011 04:58 PM               

I also don't mean to be nitpicky about it, but there are more problems with the eBay Armstrong than just the slight displacement of the elements of the "N" — one is the "hook" of the very bottom leg of the "A" that faces to the right (whereas the vast majority of Armstrong signatures has that "hook" facing to the left). And remember too that the eBay Armstrong is in Armstrong's "standard" blue ink, and is on a WSS litho. If that same signature were in a different color, and on a different and more unconventional medium, it'd cast quite a bigger doubt on its authenticity.

I'm not disagreeing that the Armstrong being described here is WAY off; but there is the small possibility that it is still genuine.

posted 10-26-2011 05:23 PM               

Regardless of the extremely slim chance of this being an authentic signature, the fact is the seller came here for opinions about authenticity. He was given a well-informed analysis on why this signature is likely not authentic...yet he has chosen to sell the item on eBay without disclosing any of these concerns (or his own uncertainties).

posted 10-27-2011 04:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
And that the eBay Armstrong, viewed on a different medium, in a different color and without the nearby inscription, would cause much greater questioning than its current presentation justifies.

---

posted 10-27-2011 04:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
I think Collins had made that face on every photo COA I've seen coming from Novaspace. I suspect he's not a big fan of posing for these photos.

---

He certainly didn't look very jolly in mine, but then again by comparison with the one on the ebay auction he looks like he looks positivley beaming!

posted 10-27-2011 07:44 AM               

I'm sure Collins is probably a great guy to be around, and from the one book of his I've read, he certainly seems to have a sense of humor.

posted 10-28-2011 03:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Armstrong WSS on eBay (#320779898229) that shows many anomalies, but which I believe is clearly and unquestionably an authentic piece nonetheless.

---