|
Author
|
Topic: Warning: Glenn Holland Signatures
|
space_19771999
Member Posts: 136
From:
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 01-17-2008 04:00 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
I can't help but stress how important it is to get a second opinion on these signatures.
Hello, I have sent you an e-mail with two scans. |
J. Priest
Member Posts: 29
From: GA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 01-26-2008 08:11 AM
I saw the title of this thread two weeks ago and dismissed it as I have never bought items from the place in question. Now that I have finally read the thread, I have a sinking feeling in my heart (you know the one... starts in your throat and slowly migrates down to lower regions). In late 2000 and early 2001, I bought a number of items on eBay from a collector/ dealer in Europe who was widely held to have authentic items for sale. Many of these items were vetted on-line by persons who had much more experience in judging space autos than I did at the time. It now appears that some of my items are suspect. I have come to my own conclusions, and the picture is not a pretty one. I have put together a collection of autographs from my personal collection: some were signed in my presence, some are from items of unquestionable authenticity, and some are from items from the dealer now in question. I have numbered them to make life easy. You be the judge. I'd be interested in all comments. Feel free to contact me off-line if you'd prefer. I fear that my collecting days may be approaching an end.  |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 01-26-2008 11:57 AM
Thanks for posting your items.I won't comment on the Mattingly, Lovell, Stafford, Young or Anders sigs, but I will comment on the Irwins. A forgery style of Irwin, from all indications sold by this dealer in question, was recently confirmed and has distinctive tells, which for obvious reasons I won't detail here. In my opinion, Irwin examples 7, 8 & 10 are authentic and Irwin examples 9 & 11 are the forgery style which apparently came/comes from this dealer in question. I have no doubt whatsoever that not only are 9 & 11 not authentic but that they are of this specific forgery style. |
Bob M
Member Posts: 1745
From: Atlanta-area, GA USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 01-26-2008 12:39 PM
I agree with Scott that Irwins # 9 and 11 are not authentic. I'll contact you via e-mail with my opinions on the others. |
J. Priest
Member Posts: 29
From: GA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 01-26-2008 12:58 PM
My home e-mail is drjdk83@juno.com |
J. Priest
Member Posts: 29
From: GA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 01-29-2008 11:13 AM
Thanks to Scott and to Bob for their comments. Anyone else? |
eurospace
Member Posts: 2610
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 01-29-2008 12:44 PM
To me, Mattingly #1 looks good, but the other one rather strange. |
medaris
Member Posts: 181
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 01-29-2008 01:19 PM
The limited number of on-line comments probably demonstrates how difficult this is. I wonder if this argues for a higher price to be placed on a clear provenance, even outside the Neil Armstrong price bracket? |
Ken Havekotte
Member Posts: 2914
From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 01-29-2008 01:29 PM
At a very quick glance, certainly #9 & 11 of Irwin are forged attempts (note the "Irw." region). I don't like the #2 Mattingly nor #17 Lovell. Can't see the last two Staffords too well and for Young (#4-5) bothers me as well. There is a possibility that one of the later Youngs could be a recent Novaspace signing that I am not too familiar with and need more "recent" experience and study with. Even the #1 Irwin is odd from first impression, however, my own collection does contain a few in-person patterns that are similar, but slightly different in some characteristics. |
GerryM
Member Posts: 244
From: Glenside PA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-29-2008 09:41 PM
I am agreement with Scott and Bob that the Irwin #9 and 11 are bad. |
J. Priest
Member Posts: 29
From: GA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 01-30-2008 06:42 AM
Note that Mattingly #2 and Young #3 are nearly identical to those on the questionable crew-signed litho from Glenn Holland shown on page one of this post. |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 01-30-2008 08:49 AM
Excellent observation, Jeff.Ironically, at least one person has long known, with complete certainty, which of these examples shown here are not authentic. That's the person who created them. This dealer in question needs to reveal the true source of these, so that the forger may be found, and help ID the bogus autographs of these styles (both shown and not shown in this thread) which he sold. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-30-2008 02:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Scott:
This appears to be fraud on a large scale, involving master forgeries of many many astronauts, distributed by him.
I have to agree with your assessment, Scott. Based on seeing many examples of items sold by Spacemike, one has to conclude that a large majority of what he sold appears to be very questionable. If he didn't create forgeries himself, it appears he distributed forgeries created by another hand. When someone sells forgeries and appears to protect the identities of the forgers, one has to conclude that person is in league with the forgers. In my mind, that makes them no better than a forger themselves. If Spacemike has any interest in continuing in this hobby, it would be in his best interest to come clean and reveal his sources...or risk being labeled as a forger himself. |
fabfivefreddy
Member Posts: 1067
From: Leawood, Kansas USA
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted 01-31-2008 09:18 AM
I would suggest that anyone with these dubious Irwin signatures should try to get his/her money back. That is the first step that must be taken to stop a giant fraud scheme. |
4tr
Member Posts: 129
From: Scituate, Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 01-31-2008 01:32 PM
I finally had a chance to enlarge the Armstrong autograph I received from Spacemike in Feb/March 2000. As I mentioned before, it was enthusiastically vetted by two knowledgeable collectors at the time. Considering the latest revelations,though, I'd welcome new opinions. |
fabfivefreddy
Member Posts: 1067
From: Leawood, Kansas USA
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted 01-31-2008 02:10 PM
This Armstrong signature looks OK from the first glance. But I would scrutinize it further:I would want to see the size of this Armstrong signature next to some authentic samples. Also, it may require seeing it in-person to decide for sure. |
4tr
Member Posts: 129
From: Scituate, Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 01-31-2008 03:33 PM
There's a bit of a problem with glare from the flash, but here's a comparison with a WSS signature obtained from Gerry Montague. |
J. Priest
Member Posts: 29
From: GA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 02-02-2008 10:34 AM
A big thanks to all of you for taking the time to look at the autographs from my collection. Your comments and insights were greatly appreciated. You were nearly 100% in picking out the autographs from the suspect covers. For those still interested, here is the key to the above blinded test. - Mattingly #1 is genuine from an insurance cover I bought from Ken.
- Mattingly #2 is from the suspect Apollo 16 cover.
- Young #3 is from the suspect Apollo 16 cover.
- Young #4 and #5 are indeed from Novaspace. Good call to you all, but the background may have been a give-away, I guess.
- Anders #6 is from the suspect Apollo 8 cover. It looks good to me -- it would be a shame if someone adulterated a good Anders cover with a bad Lovell.
- Irwin #7 is from a signed "To Rule the Night" book with a very extensive dedication. No doubts in my mind it is good although I did not see it in person.
- Irwin #8 is from the "Moonwalkers" print.
- Irwin #9 is from a suspect Apollo 15 recovery ship cover.
- Irwin #10 is from an insurance cover.
- Irwin #11 is from a suspect Apollo 15 launch cover.
- Stafford #12 is from a book signing (saw it myself).
- Stafford #13 is from an ASTP cover from the same source as the other covers. Authentic? Maybe.
- Stafford #14 is from the Bishop ASTP print.
- Stafford #15 is from Bean's "In the Beginning" print. Looks quite different from others.
- Lovell #16 is from an in-person signing.
- Lovell #17 is from the suspect Apollo 8 cover.
- Lovell #18 is from the same Apollo 13 insurance cover as Mattingly #1.
- Lovell #19 is from a Novaspace signing.
You can see the covers that these came from on my website. The dealer/collector has "done the right thing" and offered a refund on the suspect covers. |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-02-2008 01:30 PM
Of course, if this is the source dealer, doing the "right thing" would have involved him contacting you (and every other victim) first, then giving you an apology and refunding your money PLUS INTEREST (authentic space autographs have appreciated quite a bit in the past 7 years, after all, and you could have bought some nice stuff way back when with the money you gave him for these items).This person never would have offered you a refund if it had not been for years of hard (oft-ridiculed) work of collectors to expose him and his fraud. He deserves little credit IMO for issuing this refund. Probably a small fraction of people who were defrauded will ever know they were victimized and ask to get their money back. |
Ken Havekotte
Member Posts: 2914
From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 02-02-2008 01:44 PM
Well said, Scott! |
J. Priest
Member Posts: 29
From: GA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 02-02-2008 05:21 PM
Agreed. My thanks again to the cS members who helped to identify the suspicious autos.
Just to be clear, no refund has yet been received. I am still the 'proud' owner of suspect autographs. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-03-2008 06:42 PM
This topic was started to offer a specific caveat about a specific set of autographs that was sold through a specific venue. As that purpose has now been served, and as this thread was starting to topic-wander well beyond its original stated purpose (some of which has now been dialed back), this topic is now closed. |
Topic Closed
advertisement