posted 04-05-2007 08:08 PM               

This signed Neil Armstrong stamp block was being offered on the auction market and a friend asked me about it. The shape/style of the signature looked okay to me for the most part. I was not completely sure it was authentic but was leaning that way. I reviewed an image database of known authentic Armstrong signatures to see if I could give my friend a good opinion.

Many of the signatures I looked at for comparison were ones on Apollo 11 insurance covers.

One in particular looked a great deal like the signature on the stamp and this initially made me more comfortable with the one on the stamp.

But then I realized that they appeared too much alike. It became apparent that they were the same signature. Even the tiniest of features matched from one to the other.

I then re-sized images of both so that they were exactly the same size on my computer screen and then printed them out "full size." They overlayed/matched perfectly.

As the signature on the insurance cover was authentically hand-signed by Armstrong, there was only one conclusion that could be made: Someone had scanned the authentic signature on the Apollo 11 insurance cover and printed the image of it onto the stamp block.

Subsequently the actual item was sent to me. Under magnification it showed multiple colors in the interior of the pen "strokes" (this is a 2x re-size of the highest resolution scan I could make, so it isn't really sharp, but one can still see the different colors):

Also, unlike what one would expect to see in a hand-signed stamp block, the lines display no evidence of alteration when intersecting the stamp perforations:

It was indeed printed. It was expertly done - the person who created this item went to great lengths to make it deceptive.

A conclusion which can be made of course is that the first owner of this "signed" stamp block is the person who fraudulently created it.

An assumption that can reasonably be made is that the person who printed the signature on this stamp block likely also owned this specific insurance cover at one time, or at the very least had access to it to make a very high resolution scan of its Armstrong signature.

There is of course the slim possibility that an innocent person could have owned both of these items at the same or different times in the past, but that seems highly unlikely.

posted 04-05-2007 08:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott:
I then re-sized images of both so that they were exactly the same size on my computer screen and then printed them out "full size." They overlayed/matched perfectly.

---

posted 04-05-2007 10:13 PM               

On the stamp block closeup I see two parallel lines in the same position across the N stroke as the black of the postmark across the N stroke on the cover. Anyone else see this?

posted 04-06-2007 06:48 PM               

This type of forgery is is a result of the new age of technology which allows printing and digital image manipulation.

posted 04-06-2007 06:52 PM               

A printed signature in black would probably be tougher to detect with certainty than a color printed signature, using magnification. There is spectral equipment which can detect with certainty machine-printed items, but it is not widely used, yet. Interestingly, just such a machine was later used to examine this item and not surprisingly further proved quantitatively that the sig is printed. Perhaps of interest, it also showed that the stamp block itself is genuine. Using a lower-tech method... a black sig would probably display no darkening within an intersection of two lines (this would likely be detectable by applying a gamma treatment to a high resolution, uncompressed scan made with a good scanner). That, and an unusual sheen and general appearance, would likely betray it.

It is my impression (no pun intended) that this was probably done with an inkjet printer, or at the very least a printing method that did not involve pressure being applied to the surface. When I examined it in-person I could not see any evidence at all of an impression having been made on the surface.

Regarding where I first saw this stamp block, unfortunately I cannot reveal that. It may sound odd that I cannot really comment on that aspect of it - but I hope you understand.

I did not have access to the insurance cover, so could not easily compare the relative sizes, but I would not be surprised if the stamp sig is smaller than the insurance cover sig. If this is the case, the perpetrator may have believed that resizing the sig would provide some measure of stealth. If so, it didn't work too well.

posted 04-06-2007 06:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SRB:
Even if this approach works for a signature in a color (e.g., blue) would it work if the signature is in black?

---

Shhh...stop giving them ideas!!

I'd have to imagine black would be pretty difficult to detect using this method, since a printer would simply be laying down black ink, just varying shades of colored ink.

posted 04-06-2007 08:21 PM            

Therefore this is an inkjet, or maybe a laser printer, because the multicolored dots are "smeared" and indistinct. If it is an inkjet, it is water-soluble, unless sprayed with some sort of fixative.

Secondly, the crook was very good at Photoshop, in order to subtract the intersection of the original strokes with other colors. Such a master would also easily be able to alter the strokes themselves slightly to further avoid detection.

I think the ultimate detection will be through seeing the multicolored strokes under magnification.

posted 04-07-2007 12:05 AM               

The person never had to have the original in his possession. There are many images out there of autographs. Could even have been from a photograph (perhaps in an auction catalog) or a web page. I've requested high res scans at times from other collectors myself.

posted 04-07-2007 01:14 AM               

That's indeed frightening though not new - we had this case before discovered with a George Harrison signature received inperson on a card that suddenly showed up on a "Beatles white album":

This discovery has been made by renowned autograph dealer Markus Brandes who originally sold the card just to see "his signature" appear on a Beatles album.

posted 04-07-2007 08:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Novaspace:
I don't see this kind of thing stopping with Armstrongs, but sports and presidents, also. We should spread the word.

---

posted 04-07-2007 09:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Zarelli:
Like the example above, they were very difficult to detect with the naked eye.

---

posted 04-07-2007 10:33 AM               

You can try this yourself- look at autographs that are printed in catalogs and books and compare them with real handwriting under about 10-25x. Look at the cross overs and the starts and stops.

posted 04-07-2007 11:31 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by albatron:
Some time back we found a guy who was doing this with X-15 flight covers and Neil's signature.

---

posted 04-07-2007 03:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
Ok....so it is difficult to detect with the naked eye....with that said...how is the average collector be able to detect this type of forgery??

---

posted 04-07-2007 03:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
Are any images of the X-15 covers you refer to posted online so that we in the collecting community can be aware of them?

---

I am not sure if I have the cover we discussed anymore, but I'll look for it. I had one and while researching the validity of the signature, and comparing it to an index card someone had, thats when we noticed it.

posted 04-08-2007 12:27 AM               

From what I know about inkjet printing everyone's comments about spotting these forgeries are pretty much right on the mark. This item has to have been created on an inkjet as color laser toner looks a little "shiny" and would be pretty easy to spot. Dye sublimation technology wouldn't work either and Kim covered the "dots" that offset printing creates. Inkjet printers work well for these types of forgeries since the ink in the printer is similar to the ink used in pens and the printers can handle just about any type of paper finish, thickness and size.

When identifying these forgeries, magnification of the signature is key, and then look for other colors in the ink or clearly defined pen strokes. Lower quality inkjet printers should also show banding when magnified, but with today's print quality it's possible the banding won't show up when magnified.

Another thing to consider is paper. This type of forgery would work very well with index cards, postal covers, and other types of non-glossy paper. However, it would not work very well for items with glossy surfaces like lithos, photos, etc. Today's pigment inks don't adhere very well to glossy paper unless the paper is specifically designed for pigment inks. That's why most companies produce their own glossy photo paper, which is chemically matched to work best with their inks.

posted 04-08-2007 09:48 AM               

Florian or Markus, do you know what kind of printer may have been used for the fraudulently printed signature discovered by Markus on the White Album? Needless to say it was probably not a common inkjet printer - I have a hard time seeing an album being fed through one.

posted 04-08-2007 10:28 AM               

This machine is not available to the general public for fear that it will get in the wrong hands. I currently have the stamp block at my office and was able to positivly establish that the signature was not applied by hand but mechanically. I want to stress that my job was easy and it was Scott that was Sherlock Holmes here. There are two ways that I was able to establish the facts here. One is by using known Armstrong original signatures (one item I used an insurance cover that I believe came from the same batch as the model for the forgery) and comparing differences in the near infrared light reflected or transmitted by the two inks. The second method is a little more complicated and I will quote directly from my manual "...look for differences in the photoluminescence or fluorescence emitted by inks and, again, this is normally observed in the red to near infrared region of the spectrum. This fluorescence may be generated by illumination with intense visible light that has been filtered free of near infrared. As before, an examination of the document is conducted through a range of long wave pass filters with increasing thresholds between 650nm and 1000nm. Any difference in the spectrum of the fluorescence will become evident under at least one of the filters"

I have established a card catalog of known reactions to both normal ink and "mechanical" ink and can make ascertations based on these exemplers. There has been a lot of misinformation and assumptions on this string. First let me say that whoever said that a such an item as a stamp block cannot pass through a laser printer is dead wrong.Also statements about intersecting lines and dots under magnification were not 100% accurate.I will leave it at that. What is accurate is that this has been a problem for over 3 years now (babe Ruth, George Harrison and others). I am a bit ashamed to say that I have not discussed it before in public because I am terrified at what can be done. I apoligize for this and hope you all understand. While the cat is out of the bag, there is a lot more to my examination that I will not discuss at present for fear of the forgers detecting methods of discovery and altering their productions to avoid being caught.

The fact is that if someone wants to get away with this sort of thing, they probably will... once. Alas here is the ray of light here. Every forgery scam I have ever worked on shows that forgers all share certain attributes: one being greed. I'll bet the farm that there are more of these out there and would request any info that you get to go to Scott who will forward to me.

posted 04-08-2007 12:33 PM               

Your machine and your knowledge are undoubtedly very reliable methods of identifying these types of forgeries, and we collectors sincerely appreciate your efforts at combating forgeries of all types. But many more potential crooks have access to Photoshop and inkjet printers compared to the number of autograph collectors who have access to you and your detection technology. I may be naive, but wouldn' it be better to educate collectors on this new risk and protections they can take instead of limiting public discussion?