As he occasionally did, Casey also signed and inscribed a short message on the back of the card.
Nothing like two signatures for the price of one!
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Ol' Perfesser
As he occasionally did, Casey also signed and inscribed a short message on the back of the card.
Nothing like two signatures for the price of one!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
And now, the real deal...
Perhaps it's time for something a bit more positive. I was happy to add these absolutely authentic Charlton Heston signed photos to my collection.
This is a rather unique photo, and probably an uncommon dual signed photo. Almost all the Heston + Harrison photos I've seen have the secretarial Heston --including one from my collection previously. Here's the real deal.
And two signed photos from the only [known] private signing conducted with Mr. Heston.
This is a rather unique photo, and probably an uncommon dual signed photo. Almost all the Heston + Harrison photos I've seen have the secretarial Heston --including one from my collection previously. Here's the real deal.
And two signed photos from the only [known] private signing conducted with Mr. Heston.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
More Chuck Heston
While we are on the subject of Charlton Heston, here is an interesting signed copy of Beijing Diary, apparently signed by Charlton and Lydia Heston. This is the only example I have ever seen signed as "Chuck."
 |
| Beijing Diary signed as "Chuck" |
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
James Spence Authentication (JSA) on Heston Secretarial Signatures
Kudos to JSA for their friendly and professional response.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Your Charlton Heston autograph? It's probably fake.
As much as it pains me to write this, it needs to be done.
The Charlton Heston autograph in your collection was probably signed by a secretary.
I know the first step is denial... I've been through it myself. But let's put aside wishful thinking and look at the evidence.
For several years some collectors have speculated that Charlton Heston used a secretary for through-the-mail requests. This has been met with some doubt. The analysis I saw was less than convincing because it primarily compared old signatures to new, and it focused on differences in "Heston," which were very difficult to clearly discern. The doubt was also fueled by Mr. Heston himself who claimed on several occasions to personally respond to mail requests.
But, these suspicious collectors were on to something. And, I believe I have found the definitive "tell." It is in the first name. And once you see it, it is as clear as a bell.
The Theory
Photographs and other memorabilia sent to Mr. Heston's office were signed by a secretary. However, Mr. Heston did authentically sign books through-the-mail.
Real vs. Secretary
In authentic signatures, the R in "Charlton" is distinctly a lowercase "r" and less than half the height of the L. The first four letters are clearly "Char."
In secretarial signatures, the R looks much more like a lowercase "l" and is about the same height as the L. So, the first four letters appear to be "Chall."
The evidence
Authentic autographs
We'll start with books that were signed in-person. Note the distinct lowercase "r" and the R is much smaller in height than the L.
 |
| Mr. Heston at a book signing. Note the distinct R. Image by Mr & Mrs Scruples |
 |
| Easton Press edition of Beijing Diary |
 |
| Easton Press edition of In the Arena |
Now, we'll move on to some signed checks with various dates. Note that the "r" is distinct in all time periods.
 |
| 1960 |
 |
| 1977 |
 |
| 1978 |
Next, here are signed Planet of the Apes trading cards (2001) from a supervised signing with Topps. Once again, the R is clear and no more than half the height of the L.
 |
| 2001 Topps Authentic Autograph Trading Card exemplar 1 |
 | |
|
 | |
|
 |
| Obtained in-person by Mike Sibley, 1999 |
 |
| Obtained in-person by Mike Sibley, 1999 Note that the r is still distinct and smaller than the L, even on a rushed in-person example |
The following example shows the stark contrast between secretarial and authentic. Presented like this, it's pretty clear that the same hand did not sign these two signatures.
The evidence shows that in every case where there was a known authentic exemplar, the R is distinct and much smaller than the L.
 |
| Top - obtained through-the-mail by Mike Sibley Bottom - obtained in-person by Mike Sibley, 1999 |
Here are some books that were obtained through-the-mail directly from Mr. Heston's office. The through-the-mail books also show a distinct R.
 |
| Obtained through-the-mail, March 2000 |
 |
| Obtained through-the-mail, January 2001 |
Secretarial Autographs
Here are examples of signed photographs obtained through-the-mail. Note the clear difference in the R formation and the R is almost as high as the L.
I could go on and list thousands of examples with the "Chall" formation. Just look at the signed photos on eBay or do a Google image search. About 95% of the photos have the earmarks of a secretarial signature. The books are almost always consistent with my theory as well.
Here is one signed photo I found that I believe to be authentic. Note the stark difference in the signature as opposed to the secretarial examples above. In addition to the distinct "r," the signature exhibits much less pressure.
 |
| Through-the-mail, 1998 |
 |
| Through-the-mail, late 90s |
 |
| Through-the-mail, late 90s |
 |
| Through-the-mail, circa 2000 |
I could go on and list thousands of examples with the "Chall" formation. Just look at the signed photos on eBay or do a Google image search. About 95% of the photos have the earmarks of a secretarial signature. The books are almost always consistent with my theory as well.
Here is one signed photo I found that I believe to be authentic. Note the stark difference in the signature as opposed to the secretarial examples above. In addition to the distinct "r," the signature exhibits much less pressure.
 |
| Authentically signed photo? Note the contrast to the secretarial signatures above. |
Research
I reviewed hundreds of Charlton Heston autographs from various sources -- my personal collection, friends' collections and on online sites such as eBay.
I will note that, out a hundreds of exemplars, I found a handful of books that did not have a distinct "r" formation. My theory is these books may have been through-the-mail exemplars signed by a secretary. The reason for this could be that Mr. Heston's schedule did not allow for signing at that time or, once his illness took hold, secretaries began signing books through the mail as well as photos.
Dealers and Authenticators
I understand there will be resistance to these findings. There are thousands of signed Charlton Heston photos sitting in dealer inventories and probably tens of thousands more in collections -- the overwhelming majority of which are fakes. Some of these have been authenticated by reputable third party authenticators.
Until someone can produce proof otherwise, we must conclude we were all wrong.
For years Mr. Heston stated that he signed mail requests. Well, he was telling a half-truth. He was signing books sent to him, but his secretary was signing the photos and everything else.
Dealers and Authenticators
I understand there will be resistance to these findings. There are thousands of signed Charlton Heston photos sitting in dealer inventories and probably tens of thousands more in collections -- the overwhelming majority of which are fakes. Some of these have been authenticated by reputable third party authenticators.
 |
| Don't trust third party authenticators with Heston -- they all got it wrong! |
 |
| Upper Deck card - appears to be secretarial. |
Until someone can produce proof otherwise, we must conclude we were all wrong.
For years Mr. Heston stated that he signed mail requests. Well, he was telling a half-truth. He was signing books sent to him, but his secretary was signing the photos and everything else.
Note all images are copyright their respective copyright owners.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
The Neil Armstrong Autograph Authentication Flag Test
It was 10 years ago that I publicly presented the Neil Armstrong Flag Test -- a litmus test to help detect some Neil Armstrong forgeries. In honor of the 10th anniversary, I reprint my web entry from 10 years ago (from my old Geocities web site, which has been defunct for some time.)
These findings were published in Relics of the Space Race by Russ Still, 3rd edition. On page 154, Russ Still notes that, "The week this book went to press, collector Steve Zarelli made a significant discovery with regard to forged Armstrong space suit portraits." Still then went on to summarize the findings below.
#######
Original Article - 3/11/2001
Most experienced autograph collectors know that signature placement can be a key clue to help determine authenticity. While sometimes signature formation may be debatable, the signature placement is an additional tip-off that there may be an authenticity problem. This doesn't apply to all - or even most - celebrities. But there are certain celebrities that demonstrate very consistent signature placement patterns... and savvy collectors should pay great attention to such habits. Neil Armstrong is one celebrity with a very specific signing habit.
Down And To The Right
Neil Armstrong has signed tens of thousands of NASA White Space Suit (WSS) portraits in the past 30 years. The vast majority of these are inscribed. Armstrong typically signed with his infamous fading blue marker, with the signature located near his left elbow. It's no secret in the collecting community that he usually signed in this area. So, for years I used this as a general guideline as to where his signature should be. It was only recently that I made the connection as to where his signature shouldn't be.
Don't Tread On Me
I was recently chatting online with another collector who had asked me to take a look at a couple of Armstrong WSS signed photos. I make no claim to be an expert in the signature of Neil Armstrong. However, after getting burned with a forgery a couple of years back, I've made it my mission to study his signature closely and learn his characteristics. So, I feel comfortable offering an informal opinion in some cases.
The signatures the collector showed me appeared to be forgeries. There were several atypical formation characteristics plus unusually high signature placement. After detailing the unusual characteristics, I said, "Also, this signature is touching the flag patch on his shoulder, that means it's too high." I had always used the flag as a boundary to know when a signature was wandering too far from its typical placement.
Then referring to another (authentic) example, he responded, "That's funny, the inscription doesn't go near the flag either."
Then it clicked.
Armstrong doesn't write on the flag!
The flag patch area was more than just a "boundary", it was sacred ground not to be written over.
Confirming the Theory
"Could it be this simple?", I asked myself. I frantically searched through every authentic exemplar I could find. Sure enough, I couldn't find one where his handwriting went over the flag patch area. In cases with unusually long inscriptions, the odd line spacing indicates that he intentionally avoided writing over the flag area!
The next morning I contacted some friends with my findings. I asked them to review the theory and see if it sticks. Among the friends I contacted were such renowned collectors as Al Hallonquist, Gerry Montague, Russ Still, Bobby McLeod, Mike Joner, Rick Cigel, Ken Havekotte and Donnis Willis. Together, we searched our personal archives, past auction catalogs, and online sources. In all, we examined over 100 Armstrong WSS portraits. The flag theory was 100% accurate. In a few cases, his writing may slightly brush the outer perimeter of the flag, but it never intruded into the interior of the flag.
There were several cases where the Armstrong's writing was over the flag patch area. But, in every one of these cases, it was a signature that had been previously marked as suspicious before we even conceived the flag test. (Figures 4 and 5)
These findings were published in Relics of the Space Race by Russ Still, 3rd edition. On page 154, Russ Still notes that, "The week this book went to press, collector Steve Zarelli made a significant discovery with regard to forged Armstrong space suit portraits." Still then went on to summarize the findings below.
#######
Original Article - 3/11/2001
Most experienced autograph collectors know that signature placement can be a key clue to help determine authenticity. While sometimes signature formation may be debatable, the signature placement is an additional tip-off that there may be an authenticity problem. This doesn't apply to all - or even most - celebrities. But there are certain celebrities that demonstrate very consistent signature placement patterns... and savvy collectors should pay great attention to such habits. Neil Armstrong is one celebrity with a very specific signing habit.
Down And To The Right
Neil Armstrong has signed tens of thousands of NASA White Space Suit (WSS) portraits in the past 30 years. The vast majority of these are inscribed. Armstrong typically signed with his infamous fading blue marker, with the signature located near his left elbow. It's no secret in the collecting community that he usually signed in this area. So, for years I used this as a general guideline as to where his signature should be. It was only recently that I made the connection as to where his signature shouldn't be.
Don't Tread On Me
I was recently chatting online with another collector who had asked me to take a look at a couple of Armstrong WSS signed photos. I make no claim to be an expert in the signature of Neil Armstrong. However, after getting burned with a forgery a couple of years back, I've made it my mission to study his signature closely and learn his characteristics. So, I feel comfortable offering an informal opinion in some cases.
The signatures the collector showed me appeared to be forgeries. There were several atypical formation characteristics plus unusually high signature placement. After detailing the unusual characteristics, I said, "Also, this signature is touching the flag patch on his shoulder, that means it's too high." I had always used the flag as a boundary to know when a signature was wandering too far from its typical placement.
Then referring to another (authentic) example, he responded, "That's funny, the inscription doesn't go near the flag either."
Then it clicked.
Armstrong doesn't write on the flag!
The flag patch area was more than just a "boundary", it was sacred ground not to be written over.
Confirming the Theory
"Could it be this simple?", I asked myself. I frantically searched through every authentic exemplar I could find. Sure enough, I couldn't find one where his handwriting went over the flag patch area. In cases with unusually long inscriptions, the odd line spacing indicates that he intentionally avoided writing over the flag area!
The next morning I contacted some friends with my findings. I asked them to review the theory and see if it sticks. Among the friends I contacted were such renowned collectors as Al Hallonquist, Gerry Montague, Russ Still, Bobby McLeod, Mike Joner, Rick Cigel, Ken Havekotte and Donnis Willis. Together, we searched our personal archives, past auction catalogs, and online sources. In all, we examined over 100 Armstrong WSS portraits. The flag theory was 100% accurate. In a few cases, his writing may slightly brush the outer perimeter of the flag, but it never intruded into the interior of the flag.
There were several cases where the Armstrong's writing was over the flag patch area. But, in every one of these cases, it was a signature that had been previously marked as suspicious before we even conceived the flag test. (Figures 4 and 5)
Forgery - writing over flag
Forgery - writing over flag
Ironically, after presenting the theory, I learned that Mike Joner had independently arrived at the same flag conclusion as I did based on a previous conversation we had about Armstrong signature placement.
Intentional or Coincidence?
I submit that Armstrong intentionally avoids writing on the flag, and it is not just a coincidence. Here is why:
Intentional or Coincidence?
I submit that Armstrong intentionally avoids writing on the flag, and it is not just a coincidence. Here is why:
When the entire inscription fits to the left or below the flag area there is a "normal" amount of space between the two lines. (Figure 2) 
When there is a long 2 line inscription, the inscription is placed so the first line runs over the top of the flag, and the second line runs below the flag. The two lines are widely spaced to avoid the inscription running into the flag. What other reason could there be for the unusual line spacing that is only observed with lengthy inscriptions? (Figure 1)
An Effective Authentication Technique
Given the sample size and the 100% accuracy thus far, the flag test is a highly effective authentication technique. Even if an undoubtedly authentic exemplar came to light where there is writing on the flag, it does not nullify the flag test. It would still be safe to say that the flag test would be accurate in the vast majority of cases.
Given the sample size and the 100% accuracy thus far, the flag test is a highly effective authentication technique. Even if an undoubtedly authentic exemplar came to light where there is writing on the flag, it does not nullify the flag test. It would still be safe to say that the flag test would be accurate in the vast majority of cases.
Caveat Emptor
Neil Armstrong's autograph is one of the most widely forged autographs. In many cases, simple signature analysis will weed out non-authentic material. Unfortunately, there are many deceptive forgeries in existence.
Luckily, many of the better forgeries fail the flag test. This is a simple test that someone with no signature analysis skill can apply. Also, bear in mind that uninscribed WSS are rare, and almost all the Flag Test failures we found were uninscribed. This further supports the fact that the Flag Test does weed out suspect exemplars.
Of course, unless we examined every Armstrong WSS in existence, we cannot say this theory will hold true 100%. However, given the findings thus far, any WSS with writing or signature over the flag should be viewed with great skepticism.
Credits
Article by Steve Zarelli. The following fine people contributed and made this theory possible: Rick Cigel, Al Hallonquist, Ken Havekotte, Mike Joner, Bobby McLeod, Gerry Montague, Russ Still, John Wardell and Donnis Willis.
#######
Update - 12/2/2001 - Armstrong Verifies Test
A collector recently send me a photocopy of a response he received from Armstrong's office. In short, Armstrong verifies the Flag Test by stating "I don't write on the flag." The collector wishes to remain anonymous, so his name has been blacked out.
New look, same old rants
If you are one of the three regular visitors, yes this is the same Zipper's Collecting Obsession. I like to update the look every 5 years or so... whether it needs it or not.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Duke of Flatbush
Duke Snider, 1926 - 2011
Another one of the Boys of Summer walks into the sunset.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Derek Jeter signs exclusively with Steiner
For a mere $500, you can get a signed 8x10. Thanks to Steiner and "The Captain" for being so fan friendly. What a great bunch of guys!!
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Autograph authenticators, forensic and otherwise...
This post certainly drew a lot of comments. Must be quite a few people Googling "Burczyk COA."
The comments do raise an interesting question, just how good are the authenticators -- even the honest ones?
Some forgeries are so good, and they are coming so fast and furiously, I don't see how authenticators can possibly stay on top of them all. Some forgeries are so good that -- if viewed by themselves -- it's impossible to tell they are fake. You can only confirm it's a fake when a large number are identified coming from a single source, and they all have the same characteristic. By the time the pattern and the "tell" are identified, there are probably already numerous numbers of these exemplars that have been "authenticated." This further muddies the water because now some people will claim that celebrity signature style "x" must be real because here is an example that PSA (or whomever) authenticated.
As far as Mickey Mantle goes... what value does a forensic examiner really add? If the photo stock and pen type pre-date Mantle's death in 1995, "forensically" the item could be authentic. The same could be said for any modern celebrity.
Certainly authenticators have their value and do perform a valuable service by weeding out a lot of fakes. But don't be fooled into thinking their opinion is anything more than that -- an opinion. And more often than anyone wants to believe, they are wrong.
I recently uncovered a disturbing finding that will have a lot of collectors in denial regarding something they were certain was authentic. I need to get it written up and some pictures posted, but it won't be pretty. Stay tuned...
The comments do raise an interesting question, just how good are the authenticators -- even the honest ones?
Some forgeries are so good, and they are coming so fast and furiously, I don't see how authenticators can possibly stay on top of them all. Some forgeries are so good that -- if viewed by themselves -- it's impossible to tell they are fake. You can only confirm it's a fake when a large number are identified coming from a single source, and they all have the same characteristic. By the time the pattern and the "tell" are identified, there are probably already numerous numbers of these exemplars that have been "authenticated." This further muddies the water because now some people will claim that celebrity signature style "x" must be real because here is an example that PSA (or whomever) authenticated.
As far as Mickey Mantle goes... what value does a forensic examiner really add? If the photo stock and pen type pre-date Mantle's death in 1995, "forensically" the item could be authentic. The same could be said for any modern celebrity.
Certainly authenticators have their value and do perform a valuable service by weeding out a lot of fakes. But don't be fooled into thinking their opinion is anything more than that -- an opinion. And more often than anyone wants to believe, they are wrong.
I recently uncovered a disturbing finding that will have a lot of collectors in denial regarding something they were certain was authentic. I need to get it written up and some pictures posted, but it won't be pretty. Stay tuned...
Friday, September 03, 2010
PSA Says Fake; Nicholas Burczyk COA Says Authentic
Who do you believe?
PSA Quick Opinion:
Your Request for Item "Autograph Mickey Mantle w/Bat Signed Auto Photo w/COA", eBay Lot No. "160472342260", opinion was rendered at "8/26/2010 10:16:39 AM" and the result was:
Response: "Likely Not Genuine"
Here are the details of your Request:
Request ID: 73185
Request By: 08/27/2010
Here is the signed Mantle photo in question. The seller was k-statewildcat. Upon the "likely fake" opinion, PSA automatically reported the auction and it was shut down shortly thereafter.
PSA Quick Opinion:
Your Request for Item "Autograph Mickey Mantle w/Bat Signed Auto Photo w/COA", eBay Lot No. "160472342260", opinion was rendered at "8/26/2010 10:16:39 AM" and the result was:
Response: "Likely Not Genuine"
Here are the details of your Request:
Request ID: 73185
Request By: 08/27/2010
Here is the signed Mantle photo in question. The seller was k-statewildcat. Upon the "likely fake" opinion, PSA automatically reported the auction and it was shut down shortly thereafter.
The seller, k-statewildcat, apparently has a seemingly endless supply of Mantles, as well as others such as Sandy Koufax -- all "authenticated" by Nicholas Burczyk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)