Posts: 873
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Jan 2014

Posts: 2176
From: West Jordan, Utah USA
Registered: Dec 1999

Posts: 2343
From:
Registered: Aug 2001

Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 12-15-2015 04:30 AM               

---

Not an expert here, but these signatures look fine to me. I don't see the hesitation that one normally sees with a traced or painstakingly-forged signature.

Most importantly to me, it makes little sense to go to the trouble of creating a forged Gemini 3 crew signed item on a scrap of paper.

Posts: 388
From:
Registered: Sep 2001

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

Posts: 1745
From: Atlanta-area, GA USA
Registered: Aug 2000

Posts: 873
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Jan 2014

posted 12-16-2015 06:02 PM               

---

I have been looking at a lot of period John Young signatures and I will say "I am not an expert by any means" BUT every example I can find has a clear "OUNG," not just a squiggle.

John Young had very good hand writing and this does not look like the GT-3 I have (posted under the Mercury fragment Lucite thread) or others signatures I find from the early Gemini period. I still contend it looks like a skilled person trying to do Gus Grissom and John Young.

And as to the post why sign on a GT-3 on a scrap of paper, is easy. Its cheap to keep trying till you get a close copy and it's a rare enough combination to still be worth a lot even on a scrap of paper.

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-16-2015 06:24 PM               

---

Chuck, there are many (early) examples of Young's signature that are VERY similar to the one on the paper scrap with Grissom's.

I agree that a paper scrap is much easier to use as a vehicle for a forger for the very reasons you mentioned, but that doesn't mean the signatures here aren't authentic. You're right to be suspicious due to that factor, but ultimately these signatures need to be judged on their merits. Again, I think the Young is a slam dunk, and though some doubt about the Grissom may be justifiable I think it's likely authentic as well.

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

posted 12-17-2015 12:08 AM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kosmo:
There is definitely a hesitation at the bottom off all three loops (J, Y and g) in the Young autograph that doesn't look good.

---

That's not hesitation, in my opinion. Some cheaper ballpoint pens will have a buildup of ink as the pen travels in one direction (especially during a long stroke) which will be deposited when the pen changes directions. You can also see the same blobs of ink at the top of the "o" and the top and bottom of the "h"... all after fairly long strokes of the pen.

I also believe both signatures are likely authentic.

Posts: 388
From:
Registered: Sep 2001

Posts: 719
From: Albany, Oregon
Registered: Jul 2006

posted 12-20-2015 08:05 PM               

---

This item sold for $799. I thought both signatures were good and threw a bid in on it. Not enough to win, however.

Good to see some genuine Grissom signatures coming into the daylight so we can have a chance at them.

Posts: 731
From: Upstate New York, USA
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 12-21-2015 09:22 AM               

---

Mark nailed it, in my opinion. Back in the 50s and 60s, ballpoint pens were much "blobbier" than they are today. Ink would build up on one side of the ball, and then leave a blob when the line direction or angle of the signer's wrist changed.

As a hint, some signers consistently left "ink drops" in certain parts of their signature. They can be a subtle characteristic to consider when assessing authenticity.