posted 10-10-2006 12:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Havekotte:
I've always had a policy of not explaining why this and that particlar autograph in detail is atypical, bogus, or a forgery. Such explanations can take lots of time, and some are quite involved, as I would like to keep some of those reasons personal from fear of having some master forgers "know" a certain pattern or autograph style.

---

Ken is right in not usually explaining and detailing exactly why a particular signature is a forgery. Such information can be used by forgers to eliminate errors and improve and perfect their work. A great example of this is found in one particular forger's forgery of Astronaut X (not Armstrong). He unfailingly uses one feature in all his Astronaut X forgeries that is never seen in genuine examples or seen from other sources. This tell-tale trait is seen in every Astronaut X autograph of his, on various material, and easily identifies him as its source and the autograph as a forgery.

This "fatal flaw" trait has been looked for in countless genuine Astronaut X autographs spanning 40 years of examples and is never seen except from one source. It's amazing to see this "fatal flaw" trait show up in every Astronaut X autograph from this source - time, after time, after time...

posted 10-10-2006 05:44 PM               

I have heard some collectSPACE members state on this message board that they are sure that a certain signature is genuine because it was signed in front of them. However, other collectors have labeled the same signature as "questionable" or "I do not like that one" or "bogus." Apparently there is no answer to my question upthread where I asked how someone can prove that the autographs that they have are genuine, if others say that they are "questionable." My question apparently has no answer because it did not elicit a response. Is there an answer?

I suggested a notary seal and signature and photos of the signing. Would these show the genuineness of the signature?

I sometimes sign my boss's signature at work on bank documents (not checks). The bank called me once and stated,"Bill, that wasn't even close." They advised me to write my boss's name and place my initials next to it. They did not say, sign his signature.

One other employee in the office often signs for my boss and she has never been questioned. My boss's signature is recognizable to me, but there are many variations of it. If he is in a hurry, the signature is sometimes incomplete or resembles a scribble. If he takes his time, the signature has many loops and lines that are very difficult to match. Like fingerprints, no two signatures are identical, but they are "in the ballpark."

My own signature is a result of a Palmer Method education. It is very readable. I envy those who have a distinctive impressive signature. Occasionally I sign a letter at work and I do not like the way I signed my signature. I print another copy of the letter and sign it again. My point is that everyone signs items in different ways occasionally, but the signatures are all "in the ballpark" of their usual signature. Slight differences in an autograph should not discount its worth. Isn't it possible that some astronauts may occasionally sign an item differently from their usual signature?

posted 10-10-2006 09:04 PM               

I do not collect autographs. I am a writer and sometimes editor. I would like to see some control in the hobby where genuine autographs and genuine covers are authenticated and forgeries are labeled as such in auction catalogs. If it is known that an item is "questionable," why is is not labeled as such in the auction catalogs? Why, that is, other than the profit motive?

At the beginning of this thread there was a lengthy list of forged items. Why are they not shown to be questionable in the auction catalogs?

posted 10-10-2006 09:33 PM               

That said, as with any subjective pursuit, those with more knowledge -- knowledge that can only be gained by years of experience -- can state with some certainty that an item is good or bad. Can they be wrong? Yes. But more times than not, their advice can be trusted.

quote:

---

At the beginning of this thread there was a lengthy list of forged items. Why are they not shown to be questionable in the auction catalogs?

---

That said, it would be irresponsible to offer "questionable" autographs for sale, if identified and labeled as such. Questionable autographs are like "possibly flown" artifacts -- at best, they demonstrate a poor choice in judgement; at worst, they are an attempt by sellers to defraud buyers through semantics.

(I should be clear and state that I have no reason to believe that Aurora had any intent to deceive and have even more reasons to believe the opposite true.)

posted 10-10-2006 09:49 PM               

It's true that an authentic signature, if signed atypically, could be mistaken for a forgery. However, the question the collector must ask themself is this: Would I be happy having such a questionable item in my collection? Is a collector ever truly happy not knowing with near-certainty that their item is authentic? One would ask themselves...is my item just atypical or is it a forgery? Doubts like that can nag at you and ultimately ruin the joy of owning an item.

posted 10-10-2006 10:32 PM               

My questions dealt with atypical signatures that may appear to some to me forgeries. I explained my personal experiences with atypical signatures. My question remains, how certain are Ken and Bob that some of the items in this auction are forgeries. Are they 100% certain? If they are less than 100% certain, they have to qualify their opinion and state that the autograph is an "apparent forgery". What is wrong with that? FORGERY suggests that the person judging the item is CERTAIN of the value of the autograph.

posted 10-11-2006 04:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
If it is known that an item is "questionable," why is is not labeled as such in the auction catalogs? Why, that is, other than the profit motive?

---

posted 10-12-2006 02:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
FRAUD is a word that should only be used if you are 100% positive that it is a fraudulent signature.>

---

For example, how many things in this world can be proven to such a high degree of certainly? e.g. Manned lunar landings. Can they be proven 100% to everyone? Does something have to be proven 100% to be believed?

posted 10-12-2006 03:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Even Ken admits that he is not 100% positive about his decisions. FRAUD is a word that should only be used if you are 100% positive that it is a fraudulent signature.

---

100% certainty, in anything in life, is hard to achieve. The only way to determine, with 100% certainty if an autograph is real or fake is to witness it being signed (either by the celebrity or by the forger).

A photograph taken of the person signing it lends more creedence to an item's authenticity, but is no gaurantee of authenticity. After all, who is to say someone doesn't obtain a photo of an item being signed, then turn out dozens of forgeries using the same photo as "authentication." It's been done before.

So if you want 100% certainty, you need to stand there while the astronaut signs it. If you don't witness it being signed, you don't have 100% proof. Period. And when you go to sell the item, you cannot pass on your 100% certainty to the buyer unless he/she was with you when it was signed. Once it leaves your possession, it loses the 100% assurance of authenticity, because the next person ultimately has to take your word for it...and so on.

It's impossible to label anything a 100% fake. Many items can probably be labeled as 99.9% certain to be fakes, but there is always a glimmer of a chance it is a highly atypical signature. But why would anyone WANT a signature that is so atypical that it's chances of being authentic are next-to-nothing?

posted 10-12-2006 06:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by taneal1:
To refute their opinions you'd have to find someone equally or better qualified.

---

I agree with you that a FORGERY can be determined by a COURT. This message board is not a court and the experts may know their stuff, but they are not lawyers. IMHO the use of the word FORGERY is very inappropriate, particularly when the other side has not been heard. The designation of something as a FORGERY is for a court to decide. Since most opinions on authenticity cannot be given with 100% certainty, the opinions should be labeled as "apparent forgery".

It is not that I am questioning Ken's opinion on the items in question, it is my opinion that the wrong description was used to classify these "apparently fraudulent" items. Again, I mention the many atypical autographs that may be "out there."

posted 10-12-2006 07:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
I am NOT refuting anyone's opinion. Where did you get that idea?

---

quote:

---

This is for a court to decide.

---

quote:

---

the wrong description was used to classify these "apparently fraudulent" items

---

posted 10-12-2006 10:21 PM               

Again, and I hope this is clear this time, I am not questioning Ken's or anyone's opinion on anything. It is their statement of this opinion - FORGERY - that is inappropriate IMHO. It should be "apparent forgery".

Yes, Ken admitted that he was not 100% sure, but that declaration was AFTER his opinion and well down in this thread. I understand that he has an opinion on several items, but it is his opinion and a well respected opinion, but is is only his opinion and it should be shown as such IMHO. How would you feel if someone said that you were selling forgeries and no one asked for your opinion in the matter.

I do not have any items in this or any auction, in case you were thinking that is why I am interested in this matter.

Elsewhere on this message board Bob McLeod called a few rubber stamps "COUNTERFEIT". They should not have been characterized as such IMHO. They are just rubber stamps which may resemble official NASA cachets in some ways, but in other ways (size, color) they are not identical to NASA official cachers. There are hundreds of different space oriented rubber stamp cachets "out there" and they are not all NASA official cachets. Many people prepared such cachets to decorate covers, not to attempt to counterfeit NASA cachets. There are several publications, articles and CDs on this matter which would be helpful to differentiate between NASA and non NASA cachets. The other than NASA cachets are not counterfeit cachets, they are just OTHER rubber stamp cachets.

posted 10-13-2006 10:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by farthestreaches:
You're considering Ebay as a "safe" low commission alternative? You're kidding, right?

---

posted 10-13-2006 10:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leslie:
I am at a loss to understand how any serious collector would ever venture into the murky depths of eBay...

---

But you can still find autographs on eBay that you rarely find offered elsewhere, not because they are rare but because they aren't often available, e.g. shuttle commander David Walker.

Beyond autographs, eBay can be a gold mine. In the past few weeks, there have been flown artifacts offered that I have never seen listed in any 'real world' auction catalog, e.g. a peacock feather flown to the Moon on Apollo 10.

Of the top five items in my personal artifact collection, three were found on eBay (and likely purchased for less than if they had been sold elsewhere).

Lastly, if you are seeking memorabilia -- commemorative items from a certain time period such as buttons, flags, banners, posters, coins, etc. that are often viewed as too inexpensive to offer individually through auction houses -- than eBay can often be your only source for such items.

posted 10-13-2006 10:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leslie:
I am at a loss to understand how any serious collector would ever venture into the murky depths of eBay...

---

Like Robert, my top pieces came from eBay. I hate to think how much my Apollo 13 flown "Rescue" decal from the CM would have cost at auction.

posted 10-13-2006 04:05 PM               

For example, I got a nice boring tech document on planning the flight of the Agena that, ultimately failed to achieve orbit as a target vehicle for Gemini 6. I wanted it only because I own Schirra's copy of the original Gemini 6 flight plan -- which wasn't flown because of the Agena failure...

That's something I'm pretty confident isn't a forgery. Who would bother?

posted 10-13-2006 04:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by leslie:
I am at a loss to understand how any serious collector would ever venture into the murky depths of eBay...

---

I just picked up an INCREDIBLY rare X-15 pilot signed photograph which came with the sort of provenance you never EVER see mentioned in any of the catalogues from the auction houses.

posted 10-17-2006 10:07 PM               

It cannot be determined by the reviewer that the questionable item is a forgery beyond any doubt. The questionable autograph may be an "atipical autograph" for various reasons (signed in hasts, on a moving vehicle, in a crowd at a ball game, etc.).

Ask yourself, if the questionable autograph was in a Christie's Auction instead of an Aurora Auction, would you still use the word "forgery" or would you characterize the questionable autograph as "apparent forgery"?

posted 10-18-2006 12:11 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Only a court can determine a forgery.

---

They can make a ruling based on opinion, but just because they say something is so, doesn't make it so. Courts have convicted innocent men of crimes they did not commit. Just because a court says "guilty" doesn't automatically mean the person did the crime.

posted 10-18-2006 05:28 AM               

The determinations on this message board by experts (usually from an online photo or catalog photo - not the original item) that an item is an outright "forgery" supercedes the legal process which should be used to determine legally if an item is a "forgery" or not.

Yes, the court gives its opinion and this opinion is based on the testimony of experts and the experts and the courts sometimes make mistakes, but at least they used the legal process to make this determination.

I find it interesting to note that you would "share that opinion with anyone who asked" in spite of the fact that we just agreed that everyone makes mistakes, even the experts and even the courts. You are willing to give an opinion in public on this message board that an organization such as Christie's sells outright "forgeries" (if you were to determine that somehow) with no qualification such as "apparent forgeries" in spite of the fact that you could be wrong and that this could lead to legal action by Christie's against collectSPACE? I find that hard to believe.

This is a very cavalier attitude for someone who is working only from a photo or image of some kind and for someone who does not divulge his own personal identity. You would be willing to risk the reputation of both Christie's and collectSPACE just to express your unqualified opinion that an autograph is an outright "forgery" and not an "atypical" signature, yet you are making these accusations from a safe "undisclosed location", nameless and safe from legal action by Christie's to defend its reputation.

I use Christie's in this example because they actually have the resources to fight back legally if they are accused of selling forgeries. It is presumed by most people, I would imagine, that they employ their own experts to assure that they do not sell forgeries. Their experts are looking at the actual item, while you and other experts would be viewing a copy of some kind. Their experts are subject to questioning by their superiors at Christie's, while you would be subject to no questioning, safe in your secret location afraid to divulge your identity. You are the Lone Ranger of collectSPACE, fighting crime on the Internet.

posted 10-18-2006 08:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
...that this could lead to legal action by Christie's against Collect Space?

---

That aside, relevant to this discussion is information provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit advocacy and legal organization that is dedicated to preserving free speech rights in the context of the internet and other digital mediums.

Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion... rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion.

posted 10-18-2006 09:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
I find it interesting to note that you would "share that opinion with anyone who asked" in spite of the fact that we just agreed that everyone makes mistakes, even the experts and even the courts.

---

As for making judgments based on online photos or catalog photos, that is sometimes the only way that buyers can also make their judgments. If an experienced collector has concerns with an item based on the photo he sees, that is often enough to decide whether the item is worth pursuing or not. After all, if atypical characteristics are obvious on low-res scans, they won't be any less obvious in person. (Also, if you look through the archives...or just above in this discussion... you'll see many instances where people like Ken will say they need to see a better scan to form an opinion.)

Simply put, I would trust certain members of cS to authenticate an astronaut autograph as well or better than any court-appointed expert. There are decades of experience among our ranks that are a valuable resource to the community. The last thing I want to do is to encourage them to stop providing their opinions. Collectors need to help other collectors.

posted 10-18-2006 09:52 AM               

Robert, thanks for the information. It is very interesting and useful. However, you did mention that a court makes a final decision on the intent and value of a statement on the Internet if the matter is brought to a court's attention for some reason.

I am sure that we all agree that Ken is the #1 authority on astronaut autographs. His statement can never be interpreted as frivolous in any manner.

posted 10-18-2006 10:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
And, as you know, we are NOT discussing the items for which Ken said that he needs a better image to make a decision on its validity. We are discussing the items where he only said "FORGERY" and did not qualify his opinion in any manner.

---

Ken already addressed this in one of his above postings. The point has already been thoroughly discussed.

Let's not beat on a dead horse.

posted 10-18-2006 10:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
This is a very cavalier attitude for someone who is working only from a photo or image of some kind and for someone who does not divulge his own personal identity.

---

posted 10-18-2006 11:06 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
However, you did mention that a court makes a final decision...

---

If the court declaration is what it takes to make *you* happy with an autograph, then as a "minority of one" you can enjoy your "autograph" while everyone else is convinced that the "re-designated" autograph remains bogus despite a legal ruling...

quote:

---

It is therefore my personal opinion that all characterizations should be qualified in some manner, but that is only my opinion.

---

As has been repeatedly stated here the only way to be 100% certain of authenticity is to witness the signing yourself. At that point however, only you will know for certain that it is real. Everyone else will abide by the experts opinion.

Per the above which has been explicitly stated by every expert that you accuse of not qualifying their statement; when someone on cS renders a verdict of fake without explicitly stating so, it is tacitly understood that they are *expressing a personal opinion*.

There have been no responses agreeing with you that the "fake" declarations stated on this site indicate 100% certainty. That is a fact NOT an opinion.

It is MY PERSONAL OPINION that your personal opinion per the definition of a qualifying statement is simply incorrect in that it chooses to ignore a preponderance of evidence that the statements were indeed qualified as personal opinions rather than 100% fact.