posted 05-19-2015 05:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
The huge red flag on this item is the style of red serial glossy.

---

posted 05-20-2015 02:24 AM               

The original red serial photos from the early 1960s to the late 1970s simply contained, in red lettering, the word "NASA" and the serial number for the photo in question. Here is an example printed right around the time of the Apollo 13 mission:

NASA changed to the "worm" style logo around 1975. Official red serial glossy photos printed from the late 70s to the early 1990s included the NASA worm logo in the margin, along with the red serial number, and "Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058" in red lettering. Here is an Apollo 13 crew photo that was re-printed during this era:

In 1992, NASA reverted back to the "meatball" style logo. After this point, the red serial photos included the meatball logo, the red serial number, and the same Johnson Space Center information, but usually in black text (or occasionally blue text). Also, the white border often doesn't go around all edges of the photo, but is often just at one edge. Here is the Apollo 13 splashdown photo that was re-printed during this era:

Now, looking at the signed Apollo 13 photo in question, it's obvious that the photo print dates from sometime after 1992, at least 10 years after Jack Swigert died. It's rare that we have 100% proof that a signature is a forgery, but in this case we have such proof.

posted 05-20-2015 10:47 AM               

Did the post-1992 style ever appear briefly in what might have been the 1975-1977 timeframe?

I have electronic copy of an Apollo 13 post-recovery CM-109 closeout image that shows an item in the collection. Although numbering is "70-XXXXX", not "S70-XXXXX", it is otherwise the same style as your post-1992 splashdown example.

It's an obscure picture whose primary purpose would be for technical documentation - in my view it's more of a 'NASA-internal' image versus anything for public use.

I've always assumed the image originated with a ~1976 deaccession date but the artifact passed from NASM to two other public institutions prior to purchase.

Was the image definitely added to documentation along the way, or were some post-'92 styles possibly produced before transition to 'the worm'?

posted 05-20-2015 11:22 AM               

They started switching over to the second style of photo (with the worm logo) around 1978-1979, three years after the worm logo was adopted by NASA. I've never seen a pre-90s red serial glossy with the meatball logo in the border.

posted 05-20-2015 01:44 PM               

As to my original question about the washed signature mentioned by Al, is anyone else seeing it? Usually there is some blurring of photo details where the ink was removed. Also, the comma after "Best Wishes" is not unusual in Fred Haise signings, even when not inscribed to anyone.

posted 05-20-2015 02:17 PM               

So I don't think it's possible to prove there was a wiped personalization here, but it is certainly a possibility.

posted 05-20-2015 03:42 PM               

Mark’s findings are conclusive and take all debate out of the matter. Regrettably, that is often not the case and signature analysis is all we have.

On this one in particular, the Lovell is clearly “off” and stiff looking. Note that the image is just small enough that you can’t really ascertain the flow or speed … at this size all you can judge is “shape.” It’s likely that with a larger image or in-hand it would be more obvious the Lovell and Swigert were slowly and carefully executed. The Haise appears a bit more natural looking and this piece may have started as an authentic Haise single-signed photo. However, it’s a moot point because, at minimum, we can prove one of the signatures is bad rendering the item worthless.