|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Armstrong signed LLRV & A10 crew signed on ebay
|
astronut
Member Posts: 969
From: South Fork, CO
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-04-2003 10:39 PM
   
Friends,
I just placed these two rare items on ebay. Here's the links:Neil Armstrong signed LLRV: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13903&item=3616676921 Crew signed Apollo 10 cover: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13903&item=3616681959 If the links don't wrap just copy them & paste them in your browser address slot. Please email me if you have questions about these items. Good luck in your bidding!! ------------------
Happy trails,
Wayno
"...you are go for TLI."
www.TransLunarInjection.com |
astronut
Member Posts: 969
From: South Fork, CO
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 11:52 AM
Friends,
It's sad that folks make untrue public & private accusations. The current high bidder of my Armstrong signed LLRV has received two emails calling it a forgery. I expected that might happen since certain people in our communtiy call ALL non-personalized Armstrongs forgeries. I've been informed by a few friends that there's quite a debate of sorts on this item in the Astronaut egroup. As I know the source of this autograph I have complete confidence in it's authenticity. There are thousands of non-personalized Armstrongs out there signed by Sir Neil's hand including this one. It's too bad that the forgeries that do exist bring all the genuine ones into question. That's why it's important to do your homework. Several collectors have contacted me to show their support and I thank them. They have compared my LLRV to signatures they got from Armstrong through the mail, non-personalized ones, and gave the LLRV a big thumbs up. What's kinda funny is the statement one accuser made to the bidder and I quote "Plus, look at the shill bidding, already bumping it to its reserve. Stinks high and low." They accuse me of shill bidding to the very man who did that same bidding, a gentleman in Australia. I guess we'll have this same debate on the other non-personalized Armstrongs I intend to sell including my GT8 crew signed, my Gemini cover signed by 6 Gemini commanders, a photo of Aldrin on the Moon signed by Neil, and so on. I just wish these accusers would have the guts to contact me directly instead of sniping in other forums. Alas that's what our hobby has come to. This sad state of affairs actually takes some of the sting outta me breaking up my collection...I no longer want to be a part of a group that has so many misinformed backstabbers. ------------------
Happy trails,
Wayno
"...you are go for TLI."
www.TransLunarInjection.com |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 53388
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-05-2003 12:18 PM
Looking past the generalizations of all uninscribed Armstrongs, regarding this one: you say you know the source -- for my own education and others, did this source see this autograph be signed in-person or did he/she receive it in the mail directly from Armstrong? The reason I ask is that everyone makes mistakes, and if the source you mention is someone who bought it from someone else, than that does little to authenticate the signature. I think the flag that is being raised with this piece in particular is two-fold: (1) the ink is suprisingly clean, with no sign of fading, which is rarer for Armstrong (the blue ink he used during the 70s and early 80s was very susceptible to fading); and (2) it is close to a style of signature which has previously been identified as suspect. Does either of these mean that your piece is bad? No. But it should also not come of surprise if someone questions it. collectSPACE exists for collectors to share tips and learn from each other. I would encourage anyone with questions about any piece they see post for the advice of others -- but remember to do so politely and without accusations. Its better to question than assume or state as a definitive. |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1292
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 07-05-2003 12:24 PM
.. cmon Wayne.. you and the same guys that faked the Moon Landings got together to fake all of your signatures, acrylics, flown Texas Flag, pictures of all the Astros you met personally, Pete Conrads tie tack, why my goodness..thats not even really your Web Site!! Who you tryin ta kid!!...........HELLO PEOPLE! Wayne is not a fake!!!!!!!! Get over your Armstrong memorabilia paranoia!!... although as Robert says, question kindly.[This message has been edited by John K. Rochester (edited July 05, 2003).] |
astronut
Member Posts: 969
From: South Fork, CO
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 12:27 PM
Robert,
What I find odd is that this photo has been on my website for over a year, and has been shown as the "Photo of the Week" on my Astronut egroup and I've received nothing but positive comments...dozens of them in fact. Not once has it been called into question. Until now.The person I bought it from is a well known collector who posts on this site & if he wishes to add a comment to this debate I encourage him to do so. ------------------
Happy trails,
Wayno
"...you are go for TLI."
www.TransLunarInjection.com |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 53388
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-05-2003 12:34 PM
Well, for the record -- the first time I saw this particular piece was when you posted it for sale (and I have obvisouly been to both your group's and personal websites), so its possible that others are in the same position as myself. |
astronut
Member Posts: 969
From: South Fork, CO
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 12:43 PM
John,
Thanks for the kind comments.As we all know unless you saw the signer putting pen (or sharpie) to paper IN PERSON then you can't say YOU know for certain that it's genuine. On this basis 99.9% of ALL astronaut autographs out there are questionable. You have to use experience and good judgement and DECIDE FOR YOURSELF on each item's authenticity. I wouldn't be surprised that the more enterprising forgers out there are starting to to personalize their fake Armstrongs since they know that most collectors have no qualms buying personalized Armstrongs. Robert I was disappointed that not one doubting Thomas contacted me with their concerns but chose instead make false accusations in another forum and to my bidder. Debate is healthy, but accusing me of shill bidding to the high bidder is libel. Anyway while this debate may scare off the uninformed bidders, the knowledgable ones will bid with confidence. ------------------
Happy trails,
Wayno
"...you are go for TLI."
www.TransLunarInjection.com |
astronut
Member Posts: 969
From: South Fork, CO
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 12:46 PM
Robert,
I guess anything is possible but if you look on the title page index you'll see "LLRV" where it's been for over a year. No matter though as those who question all non-personalized Armstrongs will not be swayed in their opinions by this debate.------------------
Happy trails,
Wayno
"...you are go for TLI."
www.TransLunarInjection.com |
Bob M
Member Posts: 1951
From: Atlanta-area, GA USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 12:59 PM
Not taking a stand either way, but it would be beneficial if the previous owner would come forward to state where he obtained the Armstrong signed LLRV photo. I'm sure everyone involved with this signed item is very concerned that the next owner obtains, for at least $1,000, an item that he can be confident is authentic. An autograph's provenance can be very important in doing that. Bob McLeod |
chet
Member Posts: 1552
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 01:00 PM
I think an important point is being missed here, and perhaps Wayne is too much of a gentleman to want to toot his own horn about it, so allow me.
I have had admittedly few dealing with Wayne, but the ones I have had have all been pleasant and his manner was always polite, helpful and professional.
No matter what questions anyone might want to raise about this particular Armstrong signature (and BTW, while it may have some similarities to a "Peachstate" Armstrong, it also, to my eye, has at least one striking dissimilarity - - the "Peachstate" Armstrongs almost always had a discernible "angled" look, wherein the Neil and Armstrong looked almost as if a wedge were driven between them at the top, causing them to be further apart at the top, and closer together at the bottom - - I don't see that with Wayne's item), is there any doubt as to Wayne's reliability as a seller of this autograph?
Yes, there is great need for caution when purchasing autographed material from QUESTIONABLE, i.e., possibly "fly-by-night"
sellers. Does Wayne fit into this category?
Is there any doubt that if Neil Armstrong came down from the mountaintop and declared this piece to be fake that Wayne would promptly offer a full refund?
There are many dealers I wouldn't think twice about buying from, less because of the ABSOLUTE authenticity of the item I might buy from them, than because of their reputations as being rock-solid dependable insofar as doing the right thing if push came to shove. From what I've experienced, I'd include (in no particular order) Wayne E., Florian N., Donnis W., Joe D., Gerry M., Russ S. and Kim P. in that category.
(These are only people I've dealt with - -
I hope I haven't excluded anybody who others might feel I've slighted by not including them here - - if I have, it's only because I haven't dealt with them or I may have forgotten that I have).
Wayne wrote that he's been accused of shill bidding. IMHO, whoever thinks Wayne is engaging in shill bidding is an a**! (Even if he were, what would he gain?....only the non-sale of his item if the shill bid turned out to be the highest one. And if someone bid higher than the "shill", it'd only mean Wayne were selling his photo to someone willing to pay a given price for it).
IMHO, this episode is a perfect example of either forgery paranoia, or someone who's "got it in" for Wayne, pure and simple.
As Robert wrote, if an autograph is questionable we have the great resources and people at Collectspace to bat the issue around - - but depending on the degree of obviousness of the offense (gaugeable by the seller involved), shouldn't it be done in a civilized manner, rather than as a pack of howling wolves?-Chet |
James Brown
Member Posts: 1288
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 01:36 PM
Chet,I was the one who pointed this photo out on eGroups. I stated that it has all of the characteristics of a PS Armstrong, and anyone bidding on it should proceed with caution, the fact that it looked like someone was shill bidding. I never stated it was Wayne or anyone else inparticular. You have to admit, that a bidder with 0 feedbacks, pushing the bid to it's reserve in less that 40 minutes of its listing, is a bit suspicious. Suddenly, I'm swarmed with e-mails about what a nice guy Wayne is. He may be, but that still does not mean that this signature is not questionable. It is very similar to those sold by PS several years ago. Now, if you want to buy something like this from a nice guy and trust its origin, go ahead. I'm not telling anyone not to bid on it. After all, it's just my opinion. James |
astronut
Member Posts: 969
From: South Fork, CO
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 01:54 PM
Thanks Chet.James makes a valid point, just because you know and trust me does not mean you shouldn't evaluate this or any other autograph on it's own merits. I was nearly burned when I first started collecting more than once, but was saved by advice from more experienced collectors. I now think I have a pretty good eye in this field, but it doesn't mean I couldn't be burned again. One last comment (I hope) and I'll shut up. If the bidder decides to retract (I've emailed him to let him know I'll have no hard feelings if he does) then so be it. This is my favorite Armstrong autograph and will be delighted to keep it. I have others to sell. My hope was that in selling a one of a kind like the LLRV for big bucks that this would allow me to keep two or three other items of lesser value. ------------------
Happy trails,
Wayno
"...you are go for TLI."
www.TransLunarInjection.com |
chet
Member Posts: 1552
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 02:38 PM
James, I'm no longer a guest at the Egroups list, so I didn't know who was saying what about this piece, but it hardly matters.
I've never had direct dealings with you, but from what I know of you, you are an astute collector and I have respected your posts when I was a member on Al's list.
Nevertheless, you must admit that as soon as the term "shill bidding" is bandied about, and whether intentionally or not, aspersions are immediately cast on the seller, completely apart from any musings about the validity of a particular signature. This is the main thing that I thought unfair about the criticisms made.
Yes, if it were another seller, shill bidding might be entertained as having had taken place, but with Wayne?
I'm not saying the Armstrong may not be questionable - - I myself don't particularly care for the signature, or the piece as a whole, but I'd not call into question the reputation of this seller.
By lumping together the dubiousness of signature with the barb about shill bidding, I believe you have been somewhat reckless, not necessarily deliberately, with Wayne's reputation. From what I know of Wayne and his place in the space collecting community, I simply believe the magnitude of doubts raised about this piece are unwarranted. -Chet [This message has been edited by chet (edited July 05, 2003).] [This message has been edited by chet (edited July 05, 2003).] |
chet
Member Posts: 1552
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 03:20 PM
BTW, not too long ago I acquired an item
from Florian N. with an almost identical signature to the one being offered by Wayne.
It was a Nasa photo of a Command Module configured to seat 7 astronauts for rescue missions. It was inscribed by Armstrong with the phrase "An Interesting Concept".
There was little doubt it was Armstrong's handwriting and signature, unless of course the inscription was all Armstrong wrote on the photo, and someone added a forged signature. This seemed highly unlikely though, as the inks of the inscription and the signature were identical. And yes, the writing looked yesterday fresh. FWIW.-Chet |
silex
Member Posts: 45
From: Australia
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 07-05-2003 09:01 PM
It appears to me that Shill bidding mostly happens when a bidder bids almost exclusively on one sellers auctions, usually early, to inflate the final price.
In this case, the bidder, carscent, has lost 2 auctions recently, Both ended 3 July, Both for Armstrong signatures, Both had different sellers.
It would appear that he or she, is obviously wanting to buy an Armstrong signature.
The first bid would have been placed at 11.36 or 10.36 on Sat morning (depends on which state in Oz). Thats when I do most of my searching too.
Bidders other auction bids:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2181362743
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2181382388 |
Joe Davies
Member Posts: 258
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 07-05-2003 09:41 PM
The history of this piece for those interested is that I supplied it to Wayne, and I originally obtained it from Florian Noller, who I think obtained it direct, though I am not 100% certain of that. I'd certainly rate mine own and Florian's esxpertise against the majority of "expert" opinions. I can't speak for Florian's personal experience but I have handled 100+ Armstrongs that I have owned of had through my hands and let me tell you there is a heck of a difference between knowledge derived through the direct experience of having studied them in person, to opinions formulated from looking at low resolution scans in poorly printed auction catalogs.There is absolutely nothing wrong with this signature, and in my opinion anyone who questions it is either uninformed or malicious. I think it is a choice piece, I did when I originally acquired it several years ago, I did when I sold it to Wayne, and I continue to feel this way. If anyone should have any doubts about any piece offered for sale then its a very simple decision not to buy. This is the proper and correct course of action, but attempting to under-mine from a distance for whatever agenda is not the correct conduct from anyone who genuinely cares about our hobby. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 53388
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-05-2003 10:18 PM
Collectors and dealers should learn the difference between a personal attack and opinions expressed about the pieces they own. Questioning the latter does not equate to the earlier, nor should it. It would indeed be wrong, for example, to label this piece bad because Wayne was selling it (or you selling it to him), but it should not be seen as necessarily malicious if someone questions the autograph on its merits alone.The only way we will learn from each other is if we ask questions. It behooves those who question the authenticity to share reasons why -- and it should behoove those who believe in its authenticity to do the same. [This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited July 05, 2003).] |
chet
Member Posts: 1552
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 07-06-2003 12:29 AM
Robert, with all due respect, and with great regard for your attempt at trying to do the right thing, I disagree with your assessments as stated in your last post.
When you write "collectors and dealers need to learn the difference between a personal attack and opinions expressed about the pieces they own", you are implying that all criticisms, no matter how stated, are harmless (as long as there is no agenda to impart disrepute to a particular seller).
I don't think James was deliberately out to attack Wayne, but the effect of his criticisms were the same as if he were; when one writes that shill bidding has taken place, as if FACT, and then adds "[it] stinks high and low", well, is it really out of place for Wayne to feel that it is not just the piece he's offering that is being called into question??
I think it's been pretty well established that there was no shill bidding going on in this case, but that hasn't yet been acknowledged by the alleging party. I have no personal bone to pick with James, but I believe that not issuing a retraction is flat out WRONG, - - and this isn't just a matter of manners, but basic fairness. I don't think it's right to ask all parties to step back and try to do the right thing, as if anyone but Wayne here has been aggrieved; it creates the wrong impression, IMHO.Also, you wrote "it behooves those who question the authenticity [of a signature]to share reasons why -- and it should behoove those who believe in its authenticity to do the same".
Again, I don't think this is equitable, although I do not question you are only TRYING to be fair.
The mere fact that a reputable seller puts something out there for sale indicates his/her belief that the piece is authentic.
I don't believe it is incumbent on them to state WHY they believe it is authentic. (This is different than their being asked to provide provenance for a given piece for the sake of the piece of mind of the potential buyer). However, I believe someone who questions the authenticity of a signature DOES need to state why he/she believes the signature is not authentic, because merely by questioning the authenticity, the seller's judgement and/or honesty is, by implication, being called into question, and I believe before that is done in the case of a seller without any stain on their record, the questioning party has an obligation to state what they think is amiss about the item being offered.
Gerry Montague says often, quite rightly I think, that a person's reputation (in this hobby, especially) is everything. I believe he's right, and because of that it's extremely important not just that the right questions be asked, but that they be raised and phrased in the right way. If rules of "civility" are broken, we should expect corrective behavior from the offending party, not from both the offending AND the offended. -Chet |
hinkler
Member Posts: 590
From: Melbourne, Victoria, AUSTRALIA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 07-06-2003 02:26 AM
"I'd certainly rate mine own and Florian's esxpertise against the majority of "expert" opinions."
How arrogant is that. From the Armstrong Flag Test article:
"Zarelli consulted with several well-respected collectors including Al Hallonquist, Gerry Montague, Russ Still, Bobby McLeod, Mike Joner, Rick Cigel, Ken Havekotte and Donnis Willis." These blokes aren't experts? Please, spare me. Peachstate was certainly considered an expert. Maybe not so much now. All anyone can offer is a personal opinion. And if a signature has a number of similarities to something that is known to be a forgery then why shouldn't it be questioned. I don't see how the sellers name is any guarantee of authenticity. It may well be a guarantee of getting your money back if the signature can be shown to not be genuine but certainly not of authenticity. Has anyone stopped to consider the government agencies of various countries have employed top level forgers over the years to produce fake documents. What would happen if a top level forger started churning out astronaut signatures? Would an "ëxpert"be able to pick them? I doubt it.
Just my two cents woth.
Regards, Ian from Oz. [This message has been edited by hinkler (edited July 06, 2003).] |
Mark B
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 07-06-2003 03:00 AM
Hello,To set the record straight so no one deviates from the original challenge about authenticity and the auction itself. I placed several bids(carscent)in close timing on this item.I just happened to be online after they were listed. Yes I started low, then progressed up searching for a possible reserve. No shill bidding involved. No association with Wayne to improve the price beforehand. Fair enough I have zero feedback with that ebay user name but I emailed Wayne to asure him I was a genuine buyer. I received an email from a person claiming shill bidding, PLUS Quote: Be very careful with this one. It has all the signs of a PS Armstrong forgery. Plus, look at the shill bidding, already bumping it to its reserve. Stinks high and low. That is what started the drama. I appreciate he is entitled to an opinion on the piece but I don`t think they are entitled to make an astute judgement on the auction itself without at least contacting the owner or even the bidder. If he had checked my recent history he would have seen I have bidded on other auctions not even remotely related to this one. And i`m sure he would be aware that Wayne is a respected collector. I also appreciate that he gave me reasons why, including sample autographs similar. That in itself put a negative on the whole deal for me. Maybe egos and personality clashes caused this furore,I really don`t know, maybe a genuine concern. I really enjoy the infomation I receive off many groups and sites such as this but the way in which a person receives the info can sometimes be unproductive and instill further rifts between collectors. Bit of a shame really especially for the seller who listed the item in good faith. In my view the item is now tarnished somewhat. Thanks, Mark.
|
chet
Member Posts: 1552
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 07-06-2003 03:28 AM
What I don't understand is why an email was sent to the bidder (carscent) warning him of shill bidding, when his were the only bids placed.
Why tell a supposed shill bidder he's been placing shill bids?Very strange. -Chet |
Mark B
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 07-06-2003 04:34 AM
I should clarify a little. The email sent to me came from a post on a forum which all listed members received.Thanks. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 53388
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-06-2003 07:11 AM
Rereading through this thread, I realize I have done a disservice to Wayne, for which I apologize. The generic discussion of questioning autographs should have not appeared as part of his post, rather it should have been posted under the forum "Autographs". Though its too late to move the relevant posts, I have started a new topic for those who want to continue discussing the issue in general:
http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000853.html Further posts here should only concern -- in specific -- Wayne's auction. [This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited July 06, 2003).] |
Ed Krutulis
Member Posts: 145
From: Plainfield, IL USA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 07-07-2003 08:57 AM
Every One, RE-READ Joe Davies post!!!!We're all acting like "snappin dogs" here. If you want Wayne's item, just buy it, if not, pass!!!!! |
sleepman57
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 07-11-2003 09:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by astronut:
Friends,
It's sad that folks make untrue public & private accusations. The current high bidder of my Armstrong signed LLRV has received two emails calling it a forgery. I expected that might happen since certain people in our communtiy call ALL non-personalized Armstrongs forgeries. I've been informed by a few friends that there's quite a debate of sorts on this item in the Astronaut egroup. As I know the source of this autograph I have complete confidence in it's authenticity. There are thousands of non-personalized Armstrongs out there signed by Sir Neil's hand including this one. It's too bad that the forgeries that do exist bring all the genuine ones into question. That's why it's important to do your homework. Several collectors have contacted me to show their support and I thank them. They have compared my LLRV to signatures they got from Armstrong through the mail, non-personalized ones, and gave the LLRV a big thumbs up. What's kinda funny is the statement one accuser made to the bidder and I quote "Plus, look at the shill bidding, already bumping it to its reserve. Stinks high and low." They accuse me of shill bidding to the very man who did that same bidding, a gentleman in Australia. I guess we'll have this same debate on the other non-personalized Armstrongs I intend to sell including my GT8 crew signed, my Gemini cover signed by 6 Gemini commanders, a photo of Aldrin on the Moon signed by Neil, and so on. I just wish these accusers would have the guts to contact me directly instead of sniping in other forums. Alas that's what our hobby has come to. This sad state of affairs actually takes some of the sting outta me breaking up my collection...I no longer want to be a part of a group that has so many misinformed backstabbers.
|
sleepman57
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 07-11-2003 09:45 PM
Dear Robert,I have many Authentic Armstrongs (and yes a few have blue ink as fresh as if Mr "A" signed them yesterday).And he has signed well into the 90s and possibly he on occasion will still sign. I find it amazing that most collectors on this site think they have this hobby down to a science.Wake up Gentlemen ,collecting isnt, and there are no rules, and most times there arent even experts(especially as I read these posts.)By the way Astronaut thats a great sig it looks good to me ! |
Scott
Member Posts: 3338
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 07-12-2003 11:15 AM
Joe:
Florian Noller does not recall selling the signed LLRV photo to you or ever having owned it. Is there a possibility you are confusing him with another person? Do you recall from whom and when you obtained it? I do not ask these questions to be facetious, but rather to clear up this matter, as there continues to be a very active discussion offline among many collectspace members about the authenticity/provenance of this piece.
I believe if it can be shown either to be authentic or a forgery, it would benefit the hobby.
Thank you,
Scott | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 1999-2024 collectSPACE. All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
