|
Author
|
Topic: Need everyones opinion on Aurora auction Ed White signed photo
|
MarkRP
Member Posts: 174
From: Michigan, USA
Registered: Nov 2002
|
posted 05-01-2006 08:15 PM
   
I just received the 1 item I was high bidder for at the last Aurora auction (lot 132 Ed White signed EVA photo) and I saw something very disturbing with the signature (look at the photos below and you will see what I mean). Now I have serious concerns if it is a genuine Ed White signed photo. If it is genuine I'm concerned the tracing over was done by someone other than Ed White. There was no mention of this in the item description on Ebay (where I bid on it) or on auroragalleriesonline.com. The photos where not big enough to notice the tracing over either. I think this should have been included in the item description so that bidders knew exactly what they might get. I would appreciate everyones opinion on the signature and whether you would keep it or attempt to get a refund from Aurora (at this point I don't even know if that is an option). Thanks to anyone that can help me out with this.  Mark  
|
Ken Havekotte
Member Posts: 2914
From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 05-01-2006 08:45 PM
The tracing along would certainly bother me, however, there are some other concerns about the signature that I am just not too crazy about. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 05-01-2006 08:48 PM
Is the only "traced over" section the "E" of Edward. It looks to me like Ed White (or whomever) started to sign the photo, but noticed his pen wasn't doing the job. So he tried to re-trace the part of "E" where the ink was bad, then finished signing the "ward H White II" (and added "Gemini 4") with the second pen. It would have been nice if the signature problem was disclosed in the auction, however. The value might be affected slightly, since it's not a "perfect" signature. Still, it's one heck of a nice photo to have signed...if real. [This message has been edited by mjanovec (edited May 01, 2006).] |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2031
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 05-01-2006 09:11 PM
I agree that it looks like someone (in all likelihood Ed) began the autograph, saw that their pen wasn't working properly, and either gave it a shake or got a new pen and went over the beginning part of the signature. I also agree that this should have been disclosed to potential buyers in the item description. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 05-01-2006 09:40 PM
You're right. The auction description says "boldly signed." |
jut2y
Member Posts: 260
From: worthing west sussex united kingdom
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 05-02-2006 12:01 PM
Hi Mark
I'v checked my Ed White against yours and it looks good, my opinion is the same as the other guys, looks like his pen let him down and he re traced it. my own picture is faint on the E. i would be happy to email you my scans if you want.
regards
Paul. [This message has been edited by jut2y (edited May 02, 2006).] [This message has been edited by jut2y (edited May 02, 2006).] |
spaceflori
Member Posts: 1499
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 05-02-2006 12:41 PM
Mark,First of all - the signature looks absolutely perfect to me. Second - I have seen several examples where indeed astronauts traced their own signatures because the pen didn't really work - that's the case with many ink rollerball pens if you use them on glossy photographs such as this one, that's why I use felttip pens for any inperson opportunity...imagine you meet Armstrong, he only has a second to sign and your rollerball pen doesn't work !  You can clearly see that the "dw" is as faint as the large "E" before it was "resigned". Florian ------------------
Flown artifacts, autographs and more !
www.spaceflori.com |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 05-02-2006 03:32 PM
I believe Aurora probably has a return policy if there is an inaccurate description. Check their Terms & Conditions. |
Ken Havekotte
Member Posts: 2914
From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 05-02-2006 10:22 PM
Just a quick followup to my prior post on this topic. Besides the obvious tracing problem, in checking with dozens of my own White items throughout his NASA career, there are some concerns that I usually don't voice in this kind of forum for a number of reasons--but--in this case let me briefly mention a few that I am concerned about and I'll just leave it at that. This is only my personal opinion as you have to decide for yourself if you think the autograph is authentic or not. Basically, the first "d" of White's first name has a full connection, or, the circular part of the letter "d" joins with the vertical line. Most all White autographs, especially on GT-4 items, do not have such a connection. Secondly, the "H" middle initial of White's name is unusual in this format as there are no additional lines or marks that help to form the middle initial. Thirdly, all of my flight notations made by White are in the Roman Numeral "IV" and not the number 4 when adding "Gemini 4." The word "Gemini" bothers me a bit, but I'll let that go for now. These are only a few observations, and once again, just my sole opinion. I don't think it would be wise to study and only examine one, two, or three different White signatures and compare them to this one example and label it as such and such on that basis alone. Remember this is a red numbered NASA glossy signed by a popular deceased astronaut that are in much demand in today's marketplace. We know many of these, along with my opinion and others, have been--and still are--the primary focus of clever and better forgeries than ever before. |
Moltke
Member Posts: 63
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 05-03-2006 02:52 AM
I post a copy of a 100% genuine signed photograph which I purchased directly from the Harold Hill Collection via collectSPACE.
I trust you will find it useful for comparison.
I believe the photograph reinforces the points Ken is making.
Three 'H' to look at here and none of them looking like the one in your picture!
 [This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited May 03, 2006).] |
fabfivefreddy
Member Posts: 1067
From: Leawood, Kansas USA
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted 05-03-2006 09:14 PM
Mark-
I have problems with this signature too.
The re-tracing detracts enough, that even if it is authentic, it should have been mentioned. This greatly effects value and desirability.
I would examine the item more carefully under magnification. If there is pen ink under the marker ink, you can sometimes see this under magnification. You may also feel the indentation on the back. This would be highly suspicious of a forgery.
There is evidence of hesitation in this signature which concerns me.
You are correct- they should have mentioned these flaws. -Tahir |
MarkRP
Member Posts: 174
From: Michigan, USA
Registered: Nov 2002
|
posted 05-09-2006 07:19 AM
I'd like to thank everybody for their input. I've decided to send it back to Aurora for a full refund. I talked to them yesterday and they were very cooperative and understanding of the reasons I wanted to send it back. It will probably take another 3 or 4 years for me to find another Ed White un-personalized signed photo that I can afford but I guess the hunt is half the fun. Mark |
advertisement