posted 11-24-2001 04:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob M:
It's now unclear if David will simply issue a statement responding to issues brought up on this thread or will respond to questions sent in.

---

In David's and my correspondance, he has said he will first post a statement responding to the issues raised thus far. He has also said he would continue to participate, which I took to mean that he would respond to replies to his initial statement. I suppose we will need to wait until Monday to learn the extent of his involvement.

posted 11-24-2001 05:09 PM               

The other points you mention don't mean much except you admit you knew you were overcharging a customer. Did I get that right? You thought he was paying too much but didn't question it. What kind of dealer are you? You bilk clients and then accuse them of forgery. Who would want to do business with you are hearing that admission.

posted 11-24-2001 05:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Look at the situation from a completely objective viewpoint.

---

For your point 3), the Armstrong study did indeed include lithos sold by Peachstate. I know that many collectors had talked about the Peachstate Armstrong lithos long before the Study was published. I believe the Study made it very clear that there was a problem with the lithos in question. It is easy to go through the Study and pick out a style that is slightly different than all the rest. It is amazing that in almost every trial, people will pick out the signatures from the Peachstate ads as "different". I've tried this with people who know nothing about signatures and without being coached, they usually identify the same set as myself and others have selected independently.

I know that collectors had studied these signatures and made point by point lists of what they felt were areas not common with the known authentic Armstrong signature. The detail to be added here is that these items were questioned long before publication of the Study.

Your other point 3) Other collectors that I had spoken with always talked about the suspect signatures having "bad placement". As a real novice in this area, I made the assumption that they were talking about the fact that the questionable signatures are usually signed into the flag. When Steve Zarelli is getting ready to announce the "flag test" that he has quantified, he asks a fairly large number of collectors to search for exceptions. I'm amazed to find that I've been using the "flag test" for months but did not have the sense to mention it in any of my discussions. Steve does state in his announcement that I independently discovered this quick trick for signature verification. It is not that Armstrong tends to avoid the flag when he signs. It appears that he makes a conscious effort not to write on the flag. Collectors searched for exceptions and found NONE that violate this test to any significant degree other than those that were ALREADY set aside as highly questionable. To the best of my knowledge, the "flag test" violators were all sold by Peachstate. This is a fact that Mr. Frohman could easily clearify. Finally, Steve Zarelli appears to be vindicated in his flag test in that he has been given the text of a letter from Mr. Armstrong's office that states that Armstrong does not write on the flag.

Your point 4) I believe that a careful examination will show that Peachstate started a recall of Armstrong WSS lithos sometime before the announcement of the flag test. I don't believe that there is any "evil" intent here but I do believe that is the fact. I would speculate that word of this test leaked out and then recall begin. It is probably just damage control and as such a sound business practice.

My question would concern Apollo 11 items that were sold by Peachstate that include the same signature style as the those that violate the flag test. Have they also been recalled?

I agree with Robert 100%. Answers to the questions that collectors have raised would do wonders to increase collector confidence and add to Peachstate's reputation.

posted 11-24-2001 08:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Peachstate issues a recall of their Armstrong autographs.

---

posted 11-24-2001 08:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by CPIA:
Who would want to do business with you are hearing that admission.

---

#1 I am not a dealer, I am a collector.

I have been collecting for over 30 years and have assembled a nice collection. A lot of material I bought or (over bought ) over the years from Adam Harwood, Greg Linebaugh, or Donnis Willis, etc., I no longer need and pass most of it off to buy other space stuff. If that makes me a dealer, so be it then everyone is a dealer, cause most collectors at one time sell stuff to upgrade their collections.

Now to your charge that I overcharge people.

That's really cute. For the record, years ago,I was contacted per the phone by Davey Frohman and asked did I want to sell any of my extra lithos. I said maybe, what are you offering? He said how about 10 bucks.

I said fine, how many do you want. He replied I will take all the NASA lithos you have of Armstrong, Collins poratits and Apollo 11 crew pics, no Aldrin portaits.

Ask Davey if he remembers that chat.

So now that we have cleared the air about me, lets get back to the person in question here.

Oh, one last thing, good try to try to label me a rip off artist. Is that your new ploy now to make me look bad? You're comical.

posted 11-24-2001 10:49 PM               

I don't want to see the type of posts we saw this evening from anyone from this point forward.

We are all mature adults here (regardless of physical age) and we can all recognize that not everyone is going to have the same opinion about every debate. That doesn't give us the right to attack one another -- at least, not on this board.

So, from this point forward, if you feel you have to make a comment about a particular individual's comments -- e-mail that person (and if you'd like cc: myself) your response. Do not post it here.

Debates can continue here if they are limited to a discussion of the topic -- not the individuals discussing the topic.

posted 11-25-2001 12:31 AM               

It was sad to see this denigrate into personal attacks and name calling - especially from someone who wasnt going to post any more.

Larry - I fail to see the hoorah over Mint obtaining $10 per litho. I suspect the best thing to do would have been to say "Oh no, thats too much only give me $5?" That he did not say that is no more fraud than the man in the moon, and it certainly pales to other situations. Besides youre also not factoring in the idea it takes a large quantity away from Gerry that in that volume, is nearly impossible to replicate. Was it too much? That he was suprised to get that much doesn't make it too much.

It's amazing how you sieze on minutae and do your best do deflect. PLEASE stay away from that and please deal with specific issues at hand.

Best,

posted 11-25-2001 01:15 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Davies:
So why is this referred to as a "recall"?

---

To shift thoughts just a bit, thanks to Robert for maintaining a steady hand through this discussion. It makes things much nicer.