posted 07-02-2021 12:20 AM               

ORIGINAL TEXT:

NASA red number 8x10 glossy of the Apollo 8 crew at the microphone on board the recovery carrier, uninscribed with the signatures of Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders.

Please email offers, suggested current value and any comments.

posted 07-03-2021 11:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GerryM:
Hate to say it but it's a forgery. Sorry.

---

posted 07-03-2021 11:39 PM               

Without a witnessed COA from Bill Anders himself, can anyone be absolutely certain it's not a fake? So again if it's fake I was unaware. If this is a known forgery, it's not known to me...

Anyone who reads this thread will see the unequivocal proclamation from GM that it's a forgery, and of course I won't accept any offers for it.

For the education of all of us I'm going to leave the post and photo in place until GM or someone else posts clear evidence that this is indeed a fake. 'Gus is the man' has posted a request for info that has so far gone unanswered.

I am not a Bill Anders expert, so I can't declare this real or fake. If anyone else deems this a "forgery" would you be good enough to post the evidence?

posted 07-04-2021 09:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hbw60:
When it comes to authenticating space autographs, Steve Zarelli is the best in the world.

---

I haven't bought or sold an autograph in 20(?) years, so I'm totally out of touch with the ranking of expert opinions in the field, and I've never found myself in this situation before. I intend to sell off my entire collection so this situation may recur and I'd like to know what to do in that event.

Out of curiosity, if you wanted this photo yourself, AND *if* Steve says its genuine, would you then buy the item despite GM's "forgery" declaration? If you want to eliminate the individuals from the equation, and expert #1 says "forgery" and expert #2 says "real," who's right? Certainly, the conflict would lower the price of the item to some potential buyers, in my opinion.

I have a request in to another acknowledged expert, and I'm hoping he'll render a verdict. Comments from any and all per the above situation would be greatly appreciated.

posted 07-04-2021 10:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by taneal1:
Out of curiosity, if you wanted this photo yourself, AND *if* Steve says its genuine, would you then buy the item despite GM's "forgery" declaration?

---

And if there was an authenticity debate between Steve and any other person, I'd go with Steve. Within the space collecting community, I've never seen anyone dispute his verdict. He's highly trusted, because he's so good at his job.

However, I also place a very high level of trust in Gerry. He's a very reputable dealer. Astronaut Archives is a trustworthy source for autographs, and I've purchased several items from him (all of which were later authenticated by Steve Zarelli). So despite the fact that Gerry didn't elaborate on his opinion, I do think it has merit.

Which is why I recommend taking it to Steve for his opinion. Unfortunately, my guess is that if Gerry doesn't think it's real, then Steve won't either. Gerry knows what he's talking about.

As I said, a Zarelli COA will increase the value of any item you sell. It's worth the price. He offers discounts for bulk purchases. So if you're thinking about selling your collection, my advice would be to have him evaluate the entire set. That way, you can weed out any fakes you may have. And the remainders will then fetch a higher price.

posted 07-04-2021 10:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by taneal1:
You were politely asked for details by another member, why didn't you respond?

---

posted 07-04-2021 10:38 AM               

I pressed him about why and he wouldn't tell me. When I explained how and why he signed it for me in person, he doubled down. Then when I showed him the photo of him signing it for me, he became indignant. He still posted on cS as an expert for years declaring things forgeries.

posted 07-04-2021 12:09 PM               

Nobody is ever pleased to learn their piece that could be worth a couple thousands is worth virtually nothing. I get it.

That said... I take authentication seriously. I am a paid authenicator for the space department of the world's largest auction house. I was offered other positions with companies but this isn’t really what I want to do on a full time basis. I enjoy my work at Astronaut Archives. I always refer people to Steve to do COAs as I have 100% confidence in him. He is unbiased and good!

Now with those other signature authentication services you see wildly on eBay, I disagree with a few of their COAs on astronaut signatures. How can someone be a expert at political, entertainment, sports, etc., autographs. Bottom line is you can't. If it looks like their signature it gets passed.

posted 07-04-2021 04:24 PM               

A well-known prominent space collector, though mostly a rookie collector at that time, visited me in Florida and pulled out a stack of nearly a hundred different color copies of red-numbered NASA 8x10" Gemini and Apollo crew-signed color glossies. All were presented as rare vintage-era signatures on the original photos with no inscriptions whatsoever. He wanted my opinion on them.

As it turned out, there were signing characteristics that caught my attention that I was not happy with and told my new collector friend. He had actually purchased all the signed color photos as a bulk lot a couple or so years earlier.

posted 07-04-2021 06:07 PM               

When a member post here, asking for information and/or authenticity/value, it is only natural for that member to become defensive if the answers are not what they believed the item to be. I would venture to say that; if not every space collector, then the vast majority have been told they don't have what they thought they had.

(Personally I destroy proven fakes in my collection vs passing on to someone else.)

Even with doing research and asking other, trusted collectors we all have been disappointed or devastated to find out you have a forgery.

With this being said, nobody here is coming down on the member who posted, just opinions on item being discussed. I have been told that an autograph looks wrong to find out it was a forgery, however have also had autographs that look funky that Steve Zarelli gave it the Gold Standard COA.

Knowing the cS members who have commented, I would be leaning towards their opinion, but even the best can make a mistake.

Twenty-plus years ago, when I stated my quest of collecting Apollo artifacts, there were less chances of getting a forgery because the demand for these items were not as popular as today. Lots of factors why, but that's for another post. However with the unfortunate passings of these American heroes, their memorabilia becomes available through various auctions and other outlets and opens a new door for unsavory people to take advantage of.

For myself, I always get a Zarelli COA, for several reasons; Insurance purposes, increases value to potential buyers and Peace of mind, to name a few.

Even if you are 100% sure your, say Armstrong autograph is authentic and you decide to sell, you will be answering more questions about authenticity than offers to purchase. Having a Zarelli stops all of those questions and now the only question is price.

If you want a definitive answer than Steve is the man with the final answer and offers various way to obtain his certification.

Please know that I considered Steve a friend, however I don't receive anything from him to send folks his direction. In case you are unaware, Steve pre-certifies all autographs for RR Auction and possibly others.

Finally, anything said from others or myself on this thread is not meant to be a knock on your credibility and shouldn't be taken personally. We all have been disappointed at least once!

posted 07-04-2021 06:26 PM               

(What’s more, I had assisted with around 1000 Lovell signatures during the course of a three-day Space Lectures event which included many inconsistencies.)

Part of me wanted to laugh: part of me was irritated that a 100% bona fide signature could be questioned. What’s more, had this played out on collectSpace, this one opinion would then have cast a shadow over the credibility of the rest of my collection, the majority of which have been in person signatures.

posted 07-05-2021 05:13 AM               

In several of your posts on this thread you talk about the Anders signature. For example, you say: "Without a witnessed COA from Bill Anders himself" and you say "I am not a Bill Anders expert, so I can't declare this real or fake." Another of your posts also mentions Anders.

However, you never talk about the Borman or Lovell signature.

I'm just wondering why you are so concerned about Anders and not the others? I'm no autograph expert and in my 20 years of avid space collecting I have avoided collecting these sorts of pieces for the reasons highlighted in this thread and others.

However, it seems as if you might know something about the Anders sig being somehow different than the other two which you are not sharing with members.

Perhaps it is simply because Anders is rare and he doesn't sign for collectors?

posted 07-05-2021 07:06 AM               

It appears that a thick or wider solid "jet-black" Sharpie marker pen was used for the LMP's signature, however, since the first Sharpie-named writing instruments were introduced in 1964, I've only seen a handful of similar vintage-era autographs of Bill Anders in this type of jet-back marker throughout 1968-69, but the vast majority of them do not.

posted 07-06-2021 05:38 AM               

The questions I received asked only about the Anders signature. Therefore I only responded regarding the Anders signature.

If the Anders sig is a forgery, then the photo is worthless, regardless of Borman and Lovell. People here can decide for themselves as to the Borman and Lovell signatures, but only one or two feel qualified regarding Anders.

posted 07-06-2021 06:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by lspooz:
...and prominently posting details of recognizing forgery serves to enlighten forgers, too.

---

I agree with you regarding the fact that authentication is a marketable skill.

An explanation, no matter how vague e.g. "there are several points that don't match Anders known sigs" or Ken Havekotte's comment regarding a "master forger" from 20 years ago selling similar photos, give nothing away to forgers that they don't already know.

The fact that GM stated 100% that it's a forgery rather than "in my opinion" indicates there is something severely wrong, and therefore easily explained. GM himself notes his reluctance to post online, due to educating forgers. That is reasonable, but could be avoided by directly posting to the one person who politely asked for info. If GM had suggested he would elaborate for a fee, I would have paid it. Perhaps the first poster to ask would have also. I would like to know, and have sent the photo off to Steve Zarelli as everyone has highly recommended him.

Please note that Ken Havekotte, an expert if ever there was one, did not proclaim it as a 100% forgery, he offered evidence of what might be a problem. i.e. A "master forger" from 20 years ago selling photos. That wouldn't be of any help to a forger, so this is highly unlikely to be the basis of GM's pronouncement.

posted 07-06-2021 06:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Altidude:
I had the same thing happen to me with an autograph.

---

posted 07-06-2021 07:41 PM               

In my opinion, this is the work of the skilled and prolific German forger. His work was widely distributed through venues such as Regency, Aurora and other dealers in the late 90s and early 2000s. A certain collector from the UK (who has since disappeared from the hobby) also distributed these in quantity. This forger often uses NASA glossy photos because they can be washed if the first attempt is not up to par. I've had a lot of these pass through my hands and often I will find evidence of previous attempts under the pro scope magnifier.

These are 1960s style signatures, yet they are dark and bold like they were signed yesterday... not 50 years ago. Pen/ink type is wrong for the era. I can find subtle atypical traits in all three signatures. As skilled as he is, this forger follows cookie-cutter patterns because the signature is "learned" -- nearly identical signatures like a human autopen machine. Once you've identified his "look and feel," they are easily identifiable.

(You can also feel free to post the [suc]ceding two paragraphs if you'd like.)

I do not know if this forgery ring is still active. I suspect they may be to some degree. I'm always on the lookout for new and improved versions of their work.

In any case, I never share small subtle details of things that could be corrected. I don't want to help any forger build a better mouse trap or tip them off to the little things I look at to help me make my assessment. Make no mistake… Forgers most often come from within the hobby. I know that at least three collectSPACE members or former members are forgers. They listen and learn to try to improve their work. There are very specific things about the signatures that are flaws that I will not share. Everything that I did share with you is OK for public consumption.

posted 07-06-2021 08:28 PM               

After being identified as FAKE! I also fed the shredder and lost a substantial investment in the process but I know they will never be passed along again.

I am going to be destroying several more forgeries from the aforementioned collectSPACE members who attempted to sell these through the American Space Museum auctions. Thank to Gerry, Ken and ALWAYS Steve not one got sold. I am going to attempt to do this on the museum's Facebook Live show "Stay Curious."

posted 07-07-2021 08:16 AM            

I would like to share my Anders forgery experience.

I was searching for an Anders signature for a long time and back in 2012 I seen one for sale on an auction site that everyone on cS would have heard about (not RR). I suppose I was a small bit naïve but I believed how could a well known auction house sell anything other than a genuine autograph. I decided to bid for it and I was delighted when I was the winning bidder and I was even more delighted when I received the photo.

I only realized it could be a fake a couple of months after the purchase after comparing it to known examples of Anders.

I posted the photo on cS and was getting mixed reviews: genuine, fake and so on, but the doubt was in my mind.

I contacted the auction house immediately to report the item but the auction house refused to refund or even look at my signed photo because they said it was purchased outside the timeframe for return (maybe two to three months after the auction closed). After a couple more emails someone from the auction house responded to say that if I wanted I could send it back to them so Bill Anders himself could take a look at it as Gen Anders was a friend of the auction house and he previously viewed the signature before it was sold. This really raised my suspicions as I knew Gen Anders wouldn't be comfortable with that based on his previous history with signings.

I got in contact with Steve Zarelli via cS. Steve was very helpful from the start and worked tirelessly to help me in my refund. He sent me an authentication report that included why he thought it was a fake. I sent this report to the auction house and on Steve's findings they decided to issue me a full refund (12 months later). Furthermore, when I mentioned cS to the auction house everything changed, they were a lot more helpful and friendly.

This was a large amount of money to me and without Steve's help I don't think I would have ever seen it again. I learned a vast amount from this experience.

posted 07-08-2021 02:36 PM               

But fortunately now, with authenticators like Steve, Gerry and Ken, buying at several venues is safe and collectors can buy with confidence or just ask for guidance. These three care and want to do what they can to protect collectors.

I've been actively collecting since 1972 and have seen many auctions, shady dealers and collectors come and go, with buying astronaut autographs a hit or miss proposition for many years.

The most infamous astronaut autograph forger in the early days was Charles Riser, who was very successful for many years, as his customers trusted him and most were not yet experienced with astronaut autographs. He was eventually caught and that ended his nefarious exploits, but his many buyers were left with forgeries and no refunds.

Another later dealer was also successful for several years around 2000, and like Riser, was trusted and appeared to have desirable stuff, specializing in Armstrong and Apollo 11 and usually at bargain prices. After several successful years, but under pressure and faced with evidence, decided that he was now "uncomfortable" with what he had sold and offered refunds, then went on his merry way.

posted 07-08-2021 09:32 PM               

I do not know the outcome of the prosecution but I do know that several years of litigation and legal costs have far exceeded the gains from the forgeries they may have produced.

I am committed to prosecuting anyone who knowingly sends forgeries to the American Space Museum for auction. This does not mean we prosecute someone who unfortunately has a forgery in there collection.

The forgers we prosecuted were part of a larger ring of people who were feeding several auction houses around the country. All the auction houses were notified of the fakes and I hope all pulled the items from auction. I am aware of two auction houses that unfortunately sold sold some of these forgeries in previous auctions but I have no idea if they notified the buyers of these bogus items. We can only hope they did.