|
Author
|
Topic: 170137018218: Apollo 1 signatures
|
gmt295
Member Posts: 35
From: Waretown, NJ USA
Registered: Jul 2007
|
posted 08-03-2007 11:12 PM
   
I've been looking for an item like this for sometime. Not nearly an expert on there signatures. Can anyone help? I find it odd that the inscription and the signatures appear to be in different ink? What does everyone else think? Thanks |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 08-03-2007 11:20 PM
The inks definitely look different when comparing the sigs and the inscription.Another question....was this pic taken before or after 12 APR 65 ? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-03-2007 11:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
Another question....was this pic taken before or after 12 APR 65?
According to ApolloArchive.com, the photo was taken on April 1, 1966. GRIN does as well, and the NASA photo ID is S66-30236.
Edited by Robert Pearlman |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 08-04-2007 05:09 AM
Has anyone contacted the seller to determine whether the date is really written as "65" and not "66?" Could it be possible that White simply wrote in the wrong year, as one is often prone to doing the first few months of each year?The different inks don't concern me, because it's possible the crew signed a few of these photos shortly after the photos were developed from the session a few days earlier. Then later, White may have grabbed one of the signed photos and personalized it. One needs to see a better scan of the photo, however, to make a determination. And also, the possibility exists that the signatures could be a pre-print. They don't appear to be autopens...at least they aren't well known patterns. |
apollo11lem5
Member Posts: 528
From: Seminole, Florida, United States
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 08-04-2007 10:02 AM
Hello All...In my OPINION these Apollo signatures appear to be good. I was friends with the White and Chaffee families and have been privy to many of their private files. The Whites gave me many of Ed White's school books filled with his early writing which matches the writing , dedication and signature on the photo. I also was friends with the Chaffees and that signature also Appears to be correct IMHO. The dedication of this photo appears to be in Ed Whites hand IMHO. I imagine that this photo will sell for big bucks whether an AP or not !! I wish the Grissonm could be seen better but it appears to be correct to these old eyes but is a possible AP. It would not be my first mistake and likely not be my last but my experience tells me that this item is the quite possibly the real deal and that is my OPINION .I would like to hear other opinions. Best To All...Donald Brady
Edited by apollo11lem5 |
Spacepsycho
Member Posts: 818
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 08-09-2007 10:21 AM
A couple of things are strange about this.I can't say anything about the signatures, but when this seller listed the photo, he offered an inspection refund guarantee. Now he's changed his mind and is no longer standing behind the validity or authenticity of it, plus there's no longer a refund offered on the auction. Now he's saying basically "Caveat Emptor", let the buyer beware. It doesn't exactly instill overwhelming confidence when the seller changes the rules in mid-auction. Perhaps he's been told by someone who knows if it's authentic, that there's a good chance the photo isn't authentic and he doesn't want to get stuck with it. If it turns out that it's not authentic and it's returned, he knows he'll never be able to sell it again. Here's his response to a question. "Sir, there are so many intentional and unintentional forgeries, autopens, preprinted and secretary signatures on Apollo era photos, so I would need to send this photo to an expert for authentication. Can you tell me if I purchase this photo and have it authenticated by a professional and it turns out to be not authentic hand signed signatures, can I return it for a refund ? "Hi--
Please read everything that I have added to the auction listing. You can pay by Pay Pal but I will consider it a final sale. I'm doing everything I can to make it possible for you and all bidders to decide what it is worth. It's not fair to return it at a later date. The winning bidder will get what I have offered and there has been no deception in this listing. I have never before auctioned anything where the bidders plan to return it after having it appraised. That's not a fair way to buy at auction.
Brian
|
mikelarson
Member Posts: 293
From: Port Washington, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 08-09-2007 04:05 PM
I can appreciate the seller's position on this item and don't think his actions are strange.He evidently is an estate sale hunter that doesn't collect space autographs and therefore doesn't know exactly what he's got with this item. He's getting a ton of inquiries asking about the photo, leading him to believe it could (or couldn't) be worth a lot of money. Since he's not an expert, he's asking the bidders to make an informed opinion (and bid) without any kind of guarantee or qualification on his part. Some people may not like the lack of a rock solid return policy, but I can't say I blame him for making this decision. The lack of a return policy will most likely impact the final sale price of the item. On a side note, he's also recently added additional information to the item description and high quality close up images of the signatures. It will be interesting to hear everyone's opinions on the close-up images. My two cents..... Mike |
Michael
Member Posts: 309
From: Brooklyn New York
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 08-10-2007 05:05 PM
Do you think this guy is trying to tell us something??? The seller just added a few more statements. So what is the verdict on this item.....authentic or not??? |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 08-10-2007 05:20 PM
The signatures look really good to me. If they were forgeries, they would be master forgeries, the kind we've not seen before. But that begs the question, if they were forgeries, why bother adding a personalization to reduce the overall value of the item? And it's doubtful that forgeries were added later after Ed personalized the photo, since I've never seen Ed personalize a photo to someone and not sign it.To me, the only point that needs clarification is whether these could be pre-printed signatures. My gut feeling tells me these are most likely genuine autographs. But that's just MY opinion. Please don't base any purchase on my opinion...mainly because I'm not an expert on such matters. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-11-2007 08:52 AM
I'm ok with the White and Grissom, but the Chaffee has some non-standard traits which would require careful analysis or comparison.Paul |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-11-2007 01:59 PM
Auction has ended early, so who did the off-Ebay deal?Paul |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 08-11-2007 02:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
Auction has ended early, so who did the off-Ebay deal?Paul
The seller posted this notice: "THIS AUCTION WILL BE ENDED TODAY. I can now see that the 2 f's in Chaffee are impressed into the paper. There are other places in the signatures where there is the suggestion of impression. I will either run another eBay auction with a guarantee of authenticity or I will sell this through a major auction house. I've learned a lot this week about selling signed photos." |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 08-11-2007 02:45 PM
IMO this is probably OK. The only thing (IMO) that is "off" is the incorrect "'65" date being written - and so the item would really need an in-person examination. It may just be a mistake by White when he signed it. |
advertisement