posted 05-07-2007 09:45 PM               

I would also be interested in hearing from any of the CS members who can supply insight into the following. For instance:

When Carpenter dropped the M. from his signature?

When Grissom, became mostly 'Gus' in his signatures?

When Cooper dropped the Leroy?

When Buzz dropped the Edwin?

If you can post your answers on the CS forum for discussion, and send the image to: astronautstudy@gajs.com your assistance will be much appreciated.

Signature examples from all stages of their careers are welcome for consideration. Autopen and secretarial signatures are also welcome.

posted 05-08-2007 07:09 AM               

I don't mean to be suspicious, but you might understand why some people would be hesitant to give out such information (and scans) to someone who is making their first post to CS. There may be a fear that they are feeding a forger valuable information and/or templates from which to create forgeries.

posted 05-08-2007 08:51 AM               

As to your question about forgeries, I have much to say on this topic. I have been lurking and reading the CS site for some time. I have emailed several members privately and have had interesting and enlightening exchanges. Scott Cornish has been very generous with his observations and has graciously shared some of his scans, as we slog through this minefield of 'authenticity issues' -- as it applies to astronaut signatures. I'll continue to put together the information, check it against the remaining living sources and see what comes of it all.

As the weeks and months unfold, we'll open new topics of discussion, and share with the readers of CS some observations, and invite their input. It's my hope the CS readers will find these observations insightful and informative.

With kind regards, GAJS

Gerard A.J. Stodolski, Inc. - ABAA, PADA, ILAB
Historic Autographs, Rare Books & Manuscripts
Five Chickadee Court
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110
www.gajs.com

posted 05-08-2007 11:45 AM               

Kris Stoever

On edit after some thought.

P.S.: Here's a question. Good guys lurk here, but bad guys do too--in the autograph and forgery realm. So I ask the following on the premise that for every measure (increased vigilance and knowledge) there is a counter-measure (ever-better forgeries): How will your good study keep the collective expertise you are developing out of the hands of the bad guys?

posted 05-08-2007 02:29 PM               

Thank you for your kind words. Knowing, as I do, your intimate involvement with one of these 'most remarkable of men', I greatly appreciate your support. ~~ At some point in the near future I'd like to sit down with you both, and discuss this further and in depth.

There has been too long a silence and an acquiescence of those 'in the know'-- while the masses often go blindly on faith. My business has been historic autographs, and I have had the privilege and pleasure of handling many of the great historic letters that document our nation's history. Everything from Lincoln's signed Emancipation Proclamation, to Edison's signed patent attorney's copy of his drawing of the light bulb! -- to name just a few. My clients have been everyone from Presidents and Popes --- to school teachers and policemen.

A real study of these men, and their signatures and signing habits has long been overdue. It is one of the reasons the 'bad guys' have succeed for so long. They will never completely go away, but they can be curtailed and in some cases incarcerated. A good study will go a long way towards this end.

I welcome any and all submissions. You can contact me at mail@gajs.com or astronautstudy@gajs.com.

With kind regards, Gerard

Gerard A.J. Stodolski, Inc. - ABAA, PADA, ILAB
Historic Autographs, Rare Books & Manuscripts
Five Chickadee Court
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110
www.gajs.com

posted 05-08-2007 03:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gajs:

When Carpenter dropped the M. from his signature?

When Grissom, became mostly 'Gus' in his signatures?

When Cooper dropped the Leroy?

When Buzz dropped the Edwin?

---

You can't definitively say in many cases. For example, my friend had a book that he had Buzz sign as Edwin about 6 years ago. The last 2 times I saw Scott Carpenter I had an item that I asked him to sign with an M in front. Maybe Gus only signed as Virgil when he was in high faluting company?

posted 05-08-2007 07:53 PM               

W/O writing a "how to" manual for the 'bad guys', there are characteristics in inks and paper and handwriting styles that are evident. How did this group 'discover' the 'bad' Armstrong's that originated in Georgia a number of years back? Answer -- Enough of a sample was gathered for there to be a judgment made as to the authenticity of certain 'signed' Armstrong items. That is what I am proposing here. It should be fairly easy for the experienced members of this group to step forward and state that by x month and y year Grissom stopped using the Virgil in his name. The same has to be true for the others I've asked about.

You allude to Aldrin signing as 'Edwin' on a book when asked. Well we could start by knowing the following: ...we'd need to know the date of publication of that piece, or the edition state. If we know that Aldrin for all intent started signing as "Buzz" on a hypothetical January 1, of 'Z year' then it is a fairly good guess that a signature signed as "Buzz" that purports to be from 25 years before this 'Z year' -- is to be looked at with a 'selective eye'. Get the idea?

Look at it this way: If everybody knows the football game is on tape delay, then betting on the outcome is 'crazy' when the home team is behind by 20 points in the 4th quarter, unless you have knowledge of the outcome already. Taking this to autographs, if everyone knows that an insurance cover for Apollo 100 was only signed in green ink by astronaut Green, then any Apollo 100 IC signed in blue ink by astronaut Green would be a fake. The more we know, the less likely we are to be fooled.

posted 05-09-2007 04:04 AM               

Do you only want scans of items that are dated by the astronaut, or do we just need to know in what time frame the items were originally signed?

posted 05-09-2007 08:13 AM               

Ideally I'd like dated examples, letters or documents, signed photos, etc. Checks are very helpful, for a number of reasons, but as a few emails [sent to me privately] have warned: don't make a 'how to guide' for the forgers.

If you have un-dated examples send them as well. They will be added to the body of samples, and eventually patterns will develop.

Anyone who has handwritten letters, I would urge them to send a scan of these to me. It need not be a full scan of the letter. The final 5 or 6 lines and signature, plus the letterhead and date -- would be enough. In this way the owner keeps 'the content', and thus the value greater at the time of future re-sale.

many thanks, GAJS

Gerard A.J. Stodolski, Inc. - ABAA, PADA, ILAB
Historic Autographs, Rare Books & Manuscripts
Five Chickadee Court
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110
www.gajs.com

posted 05-12-2007 07:54 AM               

I can also send you scans of some "thank you" notes hand-written and signed by each of the M7 to their main trainer in desert survival at Stead AFB. Can you attribute any pieces you use in much the same way that Russ Still did in Relics of the Space Race?

FWIW I also don't see the "forger's guide" issue. There are enough items already in the public domain and on auction sites and as I've pointed out a dozen times, a committed forger would just buy the real thing and copy it.

posted 05-12-2007 08:35 AM               

If you know of other collectors with this kind of material, please ask them to assist.

All the best, G

posted 05-12-2007 04:33 PM               

Good luck and best wishes with your project.

posted 05-17-2007 10:30 PM               

Originally posted May 17, 2007 09:02 PM

The problem as I see it, is that here has been, to the best of my knowledge, no formal study of the early astronauts and their signatures or signing habits. [i.e. signatures where the values are potentially the greatest] I asked for assistance to get exemplars of the early astronauts from the readership of CS. Thus far the response has been marginal, but far less that what I had hoped for, -- though several astronauts or their representatives have offered help and I am following up on this.

There is one published booklet on Armstrong signatures by an individual who has largely been discredited by the space community. What else is there? A few online guides exist, with reproductions of signatures that have been reproduced so many times in the lead up to publication -- that the reference is useless. [due to reproduction and size errors combined with enlargement and reduction errors]

I recently asked :
when did Grissom drop the Virgil and become Gus?,
and when did Carpenter stop using the M?
or when did Cooper drop the Leroy from his name?

No factual posts or emails were received by me. Why was that? Surely there have to be individuals out there who can venture an 'educated guess' as to when, by date, these signing habits became the 'norm' for these men. But no one replied. This is so basic a question, and yet no one stepped forward with their knowledge. I don't mean to put you on the spot, as I don't know what you collect, but would you care to be the first to take a shot at the above?

Best, GAJS

posted 05-17-2007 10:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gajs:
There is one published booklet on Armstrong signatures by an individual who has largely been discredited by the space community. What else is there?

---

A major reason why that effort received wide scale support by the cS community was that its panel of authors was well known by space collectors. I think your idea would have been more warmly received if it had not also been your introduction to this site. Had the collectors here been familiar with you, not from your business but by day-to-day interaction, they may have been quicker to volunteer their examples and assistance.

posted 05-17-2007 10:32 PM               

Dear Mr. Pearlman,

You cannot expect me, or the collecting public, to believe that a series of ~1x1 inch reproductions of Armstrong's signatures taken from a variety of sources, and published on CS qualifies as 'the' authoritative study for Neil Armstrong. This man, and this event, along with the other space pioneers, are simply too important in world history to be relegated to a hobbyist study.

Scott Cornish has been the only high profile individual within the space community to actively assist this endeavor. I have traded dozens of emails with him over the last few months. Let me say that I admire his courage and his dedication. I think, by your post, that you too have now stepped forward to assist.

I am attending the KSC function this June with my wife and two sons [ages 5 and 8] to see the launch. I invite you to introduce yourself, and maybe we can work together to forward the study of this important area. I also invite you to Google my name. I think you'll find my credentials stand beyond reproach.

With kind regards, Gerard

posted 05-17-2007 10:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gajs:
Dear Mr. Pearlman,

You cannot expect me, or the collecting public, to believe that a series of ~1x1 inch reproductions of Armstrong's signatures taken from a variety of sources, and published on CS qualifies as 'the' authoritative study for Neil Armstrong. This man, and this event, along with the other space pioneers, are simply too important in world history to be relegated to a hobbyist study.

Edited by gajs

---

Well, you've lost me here.

The study to which you refer was the product of a great deal of planning, time and effort on the part of myself, Tahir Rahman, Bob McLeod, Ken Havekotte and John Reznikoff as well as the generous contributions of all the cSers who were able and chose to help. It was by the community and for the community (an effort was even made to limit the number of contributions from the collections of any of the authors, so it could not and would not be perceived or dimissed as a promotional piece).

Most importantly, it was created using objective criteria (examples were judged for inclusion primarily on proveable provenance) and involved an absolute minimum of subjectivity. Mainly as a result of this objective plan, none of it has ever been called into question. It has proved to be a valuable resource to many collectors. Partially because of it, the classic German master forgery style of Armstrong, as well as some other Armstrong forgery styles (such as the ones from First2theMoon and others), are no longer entertained en masse by serious collectors.

It sounds from your post that you are very unfamiliar with its usefulness and what went into the creation of it.

Showing a bit more respect for your fellow hobbyists from whom you wish to garner your samples wouldn't hurt, either.

posted 05-17-2007 10:51 PM               

It is just that when the resolution is in 96dpi, and the image is in a 1x1 inch square, the value of what is shown in guiding a collector is very limited.

posted 05-17-2007 11:52 PM               

It is my opinion that your recent postings, while good intentioned, are quickly causing you to alienate yourself from the very experienced collectors that you are seeking assistance from. Several of your postings have come across as pushy, "know it all," and even condescending.

Regardless of your expertise, experience and good intentions, I'll be keeping my exemplars to myself until you start showing a little more humility.

posted 05-18-2007 10:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gajs:
It is just that when the resolution is in 96dpi, and the image is in a 1x1 inch square, the value of what is shown in guiding a collector is very limited.

---

I disagree. I have personally gone back to the Armstrong study many times and have found it VERY useful.

posted 05-18-2007 11:40 PM               

We believe it should be done together and with the support of people that have done this for long periods of time and have gained the respect of many collectors and dealers.

There is always more credibilty when data is collected from multiple sources. Some people on this board have collected items from before my birth- that is a humbling fact of its own.

Tahir

posted 05-20-2007 08:14 PM               

I have Abraham Lincoln endorsements in stock. For those of you who don't what these are: endorsements were usually Lincoln's handwritten response, in the margins of a letter or envelope requesting or asking that some action be taken in regard to the request being asked of Lincoln in the letter. Most regularly we see "Let this man take the Oath of December 8th, 1863 and be released". [This oath was a means by which a Confederate prisoner could swear allegiance back to the Union and thereby go home, promising not to carry arms again.] Authentic ones sell for approx $4,500+, and can go up into the tens of thousands of dollars depending on the content and condition. You really can't buy an authentic one for much less than $5K today, yet many "oaths" are sold for less. Another example: If you go and search one of the big internet auction sites, you'll find 'Lincoln' sending his autograph. It did not sell. It was priced around $1500 and the seller proudly touts his autograph club affiliation. ~~ You need not be an expert to know that this piece was highly questionable.

But what does the appearance of such forged autographs 'for sale' do to the confidence of the market place as a whole? If a new collector buys it, and gets burnt -- he'll likely not collect within the field again. If he buys it and doesn't know he's been burnt, then my prices look silly, and he'll return to that source and continue to buy "forged or bad" material. But more importantly prices as a whole are kept low, because the demand has been filed (through forged means) -- and the confidence in the marketplace has been reduced. Even those knowledgeable folks who see it as a forgery, and disregard it, know that their collections in some way have been diminished by the sale of this 'bad material'.

I chose Lincoln for this example because he is widely collected. There are hundreds of books on him, and many pages have been devoted to his autograph and the infamous men who have forged him. --- I also chose the early astronauts for my proposed study and used Armstrong as an example in my earlier postings because he is the "Lincoln" of the space field. To my knowledge, for a group of individuals who are as arguably vastly important in the history of mankind, there are no comparable authoritative studies to the ones done on Lincoln and other historic figures. [And I acknowledge the CS space online guide and the people who made it].

If you go to the big internet auction site and look at Armstrong material, you'll see a 'wonderfully framed' ensemble piece. Starting price is around $300 and you can instantly buy it for about twice that amount. What happens to the 'newbie' who looks at that, doesn't know it's wrong and buys it? That sale doesn't hurt me or does it? --- I've already said space for me is an interest, not a business. -- But it does hurt me. It hurts us all.

So folks of CS, my apology if you see my first posts as arrogant or as a know-it-all, they were not intended that way. -- But as Nixon liked to say-- there is a silent majority out there, and they are expressing these observations to me and to others.

If you have examples you'd like to submit for possible inclusion in the study, I encourage you to please do so. gs@gajs.com Many thanks, GAJS

Gerard A.J. Stodolski, Inc. - ABAA, PADA, ILAB
Historic Autographs, Rare Books & Manuscripts
Five Chickadee Court
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110
www.gajs.com

posted 05-20-2007 10:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gajs:
Authentic ones sell for approx $4,500+, and can go up into the tens of thousands of dollars depending on the content and condition. You really can't buy an authentic one for much less than $5K today, yet many "oaths" are sold for less. Another example: If you go and search one of the big internet auction sites, you'll find 'Lincoln' sending his autograph. It did not sell. It was priced around $1500 and the seller proudly touts his autograph club affiliation. ~~ You need not be an expert to know that this piece was highly questionable.

---

So what you're saying is that low price sometimes indicates questionable authenticity?

When I said in another thread that an uninscribed Armstrong should normally sell for $3000-$4500 (and that $1000 was essentially too good to be true), you said equating price and authenticity was a fallacy. Yet above I see you saying that authentic Lincoln endoresements really can't be had for much less than $5000.

Sounds like we're really making the same argument, just with different people.

posted 05-21-2007 08:11 AM               

In a nut shell: without any standards by which material is to be judged as authentic, material with questionable authenticity will continue to be offered as being right. The existence of this 'bad' material brings down the price for all authentic material and creates an environment where collectors don't wish to participate.

How do you clean out a musty odor in a house? You open the windows wide and let the sun shine in. -- How do you remove doubts about this material? You created an authoritative study of all the early astronauts and publish the findings so that everyone knows the results. The end result being: Authentic material will rise in value, fakes and forgeries will fall away.

Want proof? Look at Florian's posting about AP11 forgeries [secreterials actually] coming out of the Astronaut Office. That stuff was so bad, that it is surprising that anyone accepted it as being 'right', but now that information is out in the open. --- Do you think anybody even slightly-in-the-know is going to be fooled by this stuff in the future?

Only by sharing massive amounts of scans and information about these things was such a 'discovery' made. Imagine what could and will happen when all of the early astronauts are subject to the same review.