Topic: Jim Lovell signed portrait: Real or autopen?
benfairfax Member
Posts: 199 From: NSW Australia Registered: Jan 2011
posted 06-06-2012 08:14 AM
Can you please tell me what you think? Real or autopen?
spaced out Member
Posts: 3110 From: Paris, France Registered: Aug 2003
posted 06-06-2012 08:34 AM
Looks like an Autopen to me, albeit with a small missing section at the start.
schnappsicle Member
Posts: 396 From: Houston, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2012
posted 06-06-2012 08:49 AM
Looks real to me. An autopen would show the complete autograph with no variation in pressure or pen width.
There's a small chance it could be a pre-printed autograph instead of an autopen. You'd have to look at it at an angle to the light to see for sure.
benfairfax Member
Posts: 199 From: NSW Australia Registered: Jan 2011
posted 06-06-2012 08:55 AM
The earlier autos are so hard to distinguish. I have a later Lovell auto and it is easy to tell. I have never seen an auto with the start ink dry like this one. It also has width variation on the J. I'm stumped.
David Carey Member
Posts: 782 From: Registered: Mar 2009
posted 06-06-2012 10:00 AM
I agree with Chris - other than the 'missing start' on the J it appears to precisely match the first autopen shown in Russ Still's book.
spaced out Member
Posts: 3110 From: Paris, France Registered: Aug 2003
posted 06-06-2012 10:02 AM
I just downloaded the high-res version of your autograph and indeed it is an Autopen. 100% sure.
These early Autopens looked very natural, with some variation in line width, as shown in the examples for this Autopen pattern on my site.
In any case this signature is an exact match for the AP pattern - every loop, letter and even the little flat line at the upper right of the "L" loop.
Overlay the pattern on your example and rotate and resize it to fit and it matches exactly.
Daniel Lazecky Member
Posts: 480 From: Czech Republic-Europe Registered: Oct 2007
posted 06-06-2012 12:12 PM
Bright, clear autopen — there is no doubt. Further discussion also unnecessary.