posted 06-01-2005 01:26 PM               

Churches are full of this kind of relics still today. Bones, fingers, skulls, you name it.

Why not exhibit Neil Armstrong's foot with which he stepped on the surface of the Moon in Space Chapel one day?

posted 06-01-2005 02:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
By the way, the person who has the hair collection not only has a hair collection, he has a DNA collection.

---

posted 06-01-2005 03:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wehaveliftoff:
The article stated that the barber DID contact the buyer and the buyer refused to return it, at least he is an historic collector and not a silly eBayer, already owning a Napolean lock among other historical locks. Not defending the buyer but he is a legitimate collector of hair locks, not an eBay profiteer.

---

I agree with ejectr - place respect for Armstrong's privacy above commercial ambition.

posted 06-01-2005 08:36 PM            

Since ignorance of the law is not a recognized excuse for violating it, there is very likely liability in this case.

Also, as Mr. Armstrong's barber and Mr. Reznikoff (or his agent) worked together in violating the cited Ohio law, (if, in fact, they did) grounds for a conspiracy charge likely exist as well.

posted 06-01-2005 09:39 PM               

It's unfortunate Neil Armstrong has to deal with this news story which I'm sure he's embarrassed to be a part of. I do applaud him for holding his ground and not letting it pass, but I've got to think after seeing the media attention the story has received he's wondering if it was worth it.

posted 06-02-2005 07:19 AM               

For the record I neither approached nor bought the hair from the barber. I bought it from a dealer who contacted him. I also called Neil's lawyer and offered to match my initial $3000 payment by making a payment to "The Hole in the Wall Gang" (in his name), a camp for terminal children here in Connecticut that is run by Paul Newman and that is charity I work closely with.

posted 06-02-2005 11:28 PM               

Next they published a book of people and their DNA with a relative risk correlation for things like alcoholism, sexual deviance, bipolar mood disorder, baldness, impotence, etc., etc.

The DNA is going to be a "hot seller" when the human genome project is completed. There is a lot more to this than "just some hair."

Also, the root of the hair is better currently for DNA analysis. But that does not mean that you can't ever get it through other future methods. This area of science will just get better.

posted 06-03-2005 04:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fabfivefreddy:
Imagine if someone took your hair sample and had the DNA "decoded."

---

posted 06-03-2005 11:38 AM               

Armstrong apparently found out about the sale of his hair by chance on a skiing trip to Colorado. He was on a chairlift with someone who knows Mueller and knew about the deal with the barber.

posted 06-03-2005 07:12 PM            

John Reznikoff, whom I believe many here at cS are familiar with, said, "On one hand, I kind of understand where he [Armstrong] is coming from, but he gives autographs. There is a straight line between signed autographs and locks of hair, and I am confused by all the fuss."

Mr. Reznikoff is head of University Archives, an autograph clearing house, and is not a stranger to cS, having posted here very recently regarding this "barber" incident. I find it disingenuous, to say the least, for him to essentially claim he is unaware that Neil Armstrong hasn't signed for the public for many years, and why. Knowing that, he surely must know that Armstrong would never have agreed to volunteer locks of his hair for sale for anyone's collection. This makes it clear Mr. Reznikoff knew full well his purchase of Mr. Armstrong's hair was something that had to be done surreptitiously, yet his post here at cS and his quote in the Gazette article give the impression he thought the entire process of his acquisition was, essentially, no big deal.

In Mr. Reznikoff's cS posting, he says, "For the record I neither approached nor bought the hair from the Barber. I bought it from a dealer who contacted him". This leaves unclear, however, whether Mr. Reznikoff put Mr. Mueller up to the deed; if he did, his statement is intentionally misleading. And regardless of whether he did or did not put Mueller up to it (though that seems likely), knowing what Mr. Reznikoff certainly knows about Mr. Armstrong's desire to protect his privacy, his actions cannot be regarded as anything but unscrupulous.

posted 06-03-2005 10:22 PM               

John Reznikoff wrote, "I did not know Armstrong did not want his hair sold until the press broke."

Todd Mueller wrote: "We are suprised by Neil Armstrong's reaction."

posted 06-03-2005 10:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlyduke:
The article referenced by Scott contains some unbelievable revelations.

---

posted 06-03-2005 10:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Can anyone else here honestly say that upon reading the news of Armstrong's reaction that it was a surprise?

---

posted 06-03-2005 11:26 PM               

quote:

---

On the other hand if one were navigating towards a star of painting the whole situation in a negative manner your words might have some merit.

---

posted 06-04-2005 12:05 AM               

You have a point on the difference between the opinions presented here and a news article. On your other point you may be right in that my knowledge of Neil might inferior to yours and not up to what you expected. Space in total might be 3% of my business. I specialize in American Historical and Revolutionary War. I was under the impression that on at least several occasions recently autographs were given to people. I think the signature study goes up to 2000 but I thought the line in the sand was more recent.

posted 06-04-2005 01:02 AM            

Mr. Reznikoff was well aware of Armstrong's non-signing policy, and why. Isn't it odd that an interlocutor, Mr. Mueller, made the deal with Armstrong's barber, and then got that sample to Mr. Reznikoff, who just happens to like collecting hair strands of historic figures?

This "strange" confluence of events would seem to make it nearly impossible to paint any picture other than that Mr. Reznikoff knew he was doing something shady, or at the very least (and contrary to his protestations), something he knew Mr. Armstrong would find most intrusive, distasteful and unwelcome. Perhaps that was bad enough, but it got even worse.

It is cynical to attempt self-exoneration, by suggesting Armstrong is overreacting, by trying to portray him as taking a sledgehammer to a poor small town barber who only takes in $12 for a haircut; after all, who could've foreseen such non-compassion toward a simple working man? Armstrong's response was totally understandable, as he reacted as anyone who cherished their privacy and had it violated and exploited, by his barber, of all people, might have.

And does Mr. Reznikoff not consider himself more knowledgeable, when it comes to the place of historical figures in our society, than the general population? Why, then, the reference to the general population's surprise at this story?

As justification for his own "inability" to anticipate Armstrong's reaction to the affair? If Mr. Reznikoff was "under the impression that on at least several occasions recently autographs were given to people," and if Armstrong's reaction was so unforeseeable, why wasn't Armstrong approached directly with a request for a lock of his hair? Cynicism appears to be in no short supply here.

Lastly, it's ironic that Mr. Reznikoff asserts that "without the lawyers letter there was no story. Think "Deep Throat." It is my belief that the barber leaked it to the press." What are we to make of this? Is Mr. Reznikoff saying that had this matter not gained any publicity he would've just gotten away with invading Armstrong's privacy with no one having been the wiser?

posted 06-04-2005 01:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by reznikoff:
Without the lawyers letter there was no story.

---

I fail to see how Armstrong giving someone an autograph has anything to do with you and Todd buying his hair without his knowledge. But you raise an interesting question: if you believed Armstrong to be generous and desired a sample of his hair, why had you not contacted him previously?

How fair and open have you been to Armstrong's request for the return of the hair? You have offered to donate money, which is fine and good, but it's not what he asked of you. He asked for Sizemore to donate the money he received and for the hair to be returned.

posted 06-04-2005 07:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlyduke:
This whole matter would've been easy to resolve when it first gained exposure; all Mr. Reznikoff had to do was announce he would return Armstrong's strands to him, and apologize for the episode.

---

posted 06-04-2005 10:00 AM               

Additionally, have we established any agreement on the matter of "possession and ownership" in this matter? The barber cut Neil Armstrong's hair and the hair fell to the floor. Neil then left the premises. I am not a lawyer but doesn't that give possession and ownership of the hair to the barber? Neil may have expectation that the hair would be disposed of but he does not have "ownership" of the hair any longer. The barber can throw it into the garbage, or make the hair into a pillow if he wishes, or sell it to wig makers.

The hair is no longer "part of Neil's body" since he willingly disposed of it on someone's property. How is this "invasion of privacy"? The comparison of the hair to a personal object such as a "watch" or a pen or even a billfold is not appropriate. These items, if left at the barber shop by accident, would still be the property of the original owner. Neil would not be disposing of these items voluntarily, particularly if it is his Omega watch.

So my point is that Neil does not have possession of the hair; he disposed of it voluntarily; it had no value to Neil and it was no longer part of his body. The barber now had possession and ownership of this valueless item - hair.

The question of the propriety of this matter is something else. I cannot imagine that this scenario had not occurred to Neil during his many visits to his barber. I have joked with my barber several times over the years that "you should save that hair in case I become famous." How could Neil Armstrong not have thought of this as his hair fell to the floor over the years?

posted 06-04-2005 11:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Is there only one collector of hair in the world or are there several hair collectors?

---

I have had this article brought to my attention by several people, (non-collectors) who brought it up, only because they thought that Armstrong's reaction was more bizarre than collecting locks of hair of the famous. Some locks of Manfred von Richthofen's hair have been continually resized down to as little as a 1/8 segment of a single hair and may bring as much as the Armstrong hair mentioned.

Those on collectSPACE may assume that the Armstrong response to commercialization of his discarded hair was inevitable. But there has been no correlation, here, to the almost daily selling of his autographed items here and elsewhere, which he clearly deplores. The very reason he quit signing. Should everyone send back all his autographed items, or donate the money they made selling them on eBay? Some my have been offered as gifts or courtesies, and souvenirs — but he clearly would have refused, had he been told they would later be sold for considerable amounts of money, Don't you think? He has taken a very firm stance that selling his autographs is deplorable to him.

posted 06-04-2005 11:33 AM               

I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. So I can only comment on my layman's read of the code. It begins:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not use any aspect of an individual's persona for a commercial purpose during the individual's lifetime or for a period of sixty years after the date of the individual's death.

The hair — unlabeled — has no intrinsic value. But that was not what was being sold: it was "Neil Armstrong's hair." The value was created through the representation that this was a famous person's hair.

So while the barber might have the right to sell the non-descript hair that falls to the floor to wig makers or doll manufacturers, the question is did he have the right to use Armstrong's name in connection with its sale.

It doesn't matter if Armstrong realized the value of his hair — because it has no value. The commodity is in his name, and that is a concept he is clearly familiar (reference his prior legal action against Hallmark, for example).

As for Armstrong's reaction, I have found most non-collectors to be sympathetic with the moonwalker's position. Asked whether they would be upset if they discovered their barber was profiting thousands of dollars off strands of their hair, all replied that they would be angered and most would do what it takes to put an end to it immediately.

posted 06-04-2005 11:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by barnstormer:
But I don't think that commerce hurts him any more than having some of his hair (destined for the garbage bin) in Mr. Reznikoff's collection of samples from many other historic figures.

---

posted 06-04-2005 11:46 AM               

If it was just Armstrong being incensed at someone selling something from him that wasn't intended specifically as an autograph, then why didn't Armstrong go after the gentleman who obtained and subsequently sold the handwritten "N.A. Armstrong" address from Armstrong when Neil reviewed his Eagle Scout presentation?

Or if it was revealed that some of Neil's hair from a military haircut decades ago was in someone's possession, would he really care?