posted 11-25-2001 08:01 PM               

Please allow me to introduce myself.

I'm David Frohman, President of Peachstate Historical Consulting, Inc., which is located in Atlanta, Georgia.

Let me first wish you all a very happy and healthy holiday season!

I intended to post my response on Monday, November 26, 2001, and clearly communicated this in writing to Robert Pearlman four days ago.

I just recently returned to Atlanta, and was struggling to play catch-up, and also enjoy my Thanksgiving weekend with loved ones without interruption.

However, after observing the rapid downward spiral of the "thread", I decided to interrupt the weekend with my family, and post my response today instead.

The structure of my post will consist of some background information on Peachstate, and discussion of the material in question.

I will also make my first public comment regarding the Neil Armstrong Signature Study.

To begin with, many of you have heard my name or Peachstate's, but never really known who I was, or what my firm is all about.

If I may, please allow me to briefly give you some background.

Peachstate was incorporated in Georgia in 1997, and has since grown into one of the world's largest appraisers, consultants and retailers of American space artifacts and memorabilia.

We are located in Atlanta, Georgia, and can be reached, toll-free, at (888) 644-7322. Our e-mail address is frohman@bellsouth.net.

I have also been an avid space collector since 1975.

My professional credentials, within the space collectibles industry, include being the personal cataloger and appraiser to various pioneer astronauts and their families.

I also consultant for various national space institutions.

Peachstate has a very large and loyal clientele, for whom I have had the pleasure of building numerous world-class space collections. Many of these wonderful folks have also become my personal friends.

Now to the business at hand!

Upon my return to Atlanta the other day, I found an e-mail from Robert Pearlman requesting that I clarify a statement made in a posting by Bill Swearington, under the topic of "Neil Armstrong Forgeries".

Until that time, I was unaware of the thread on Collectspace, so Robert's e-mail caught me by surprise.

I immediately called Bill, who sounds like a delightful gentleman, and clarified his original misconception, which he promptly and properly posted on his thread. That should have ended it, but unfortunately did not.

Bill originally launched (sorry!) his thread by paying a complement to Peachstate, for which I would like to publicly thank him.

I would also like to thank various folks for their nice comments about Peachstate.

Unfortunately, Bill's thread disintegrated into a long and self-perpetuating litany of misinformed innuendo, which was unfortunately allowed to linger.

I am often required to maintain a low profile on the web, due to the sensitive nature of many of the projects that I am involved in.

As a result, I do not typically participate in Web Chatrooms, or e-group banter.

However, I felt that the large "silent majority" looking in on that fore-mentioned tangled thread DESERVED a thoughtful and FIRM reply to some of the posts!

I will be as candid as possible, but out of respect for my clientele, refuse to violate their privacy, or disclose any propietary corporate information.

Let me again apologize for what some have viewed as a tardy reply.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to immediately respond to Internet issues on the road, and I beg the forgiveness of those who automatically questioned my professionalism for not instantly responding.

My personal goal, when launching Peachstate five years ago, was to help legitimize space collectibles in mainstream America, where they have typically been regarded as a fringe hobby.

I have always suspected that a huge untapped clientele for space collectibles existed, and I was right.

I have always operated Peachstate as an above-board business, which includes keeping COMPLETE written records, remaining accountable to our clientele, and paying taxes (which require those written records).

Unfortunately, in the process, I apparently stepped on some toes, resulting in an invisible "turf war" for a very profitable emerging market.

As a result of this "turf-war", which Peachstate did NOT start, a hand-full of individuals have refused to let me forget a small, but embarrassing, error that I may have made four years ago.

It concerned a portion of one of Peachstate's first space acquisitions.

As Doc correctly said, one does not usually hang out the dirty laundry in public, and especially on a hostile playing field.

You're correct, Doc!

I may have gotten snookered, and DON'T want to discuss it ad naseum (by the way, I have not yet stopped beating my wife, ha ha).

Doc also correctly inferred in his wise evaluation that this WAS an INTERNAL corporate matter, which WAS discussed in a timely manner DIRECTLY with the people affected.

Namely, our precious collectors!!

I did not feel it necessary to take out an ad in the New York Times to discuss it.

As with everything else that I have ever read from the pen of Dr. William Hanson, his comments were wise, thoughtful, sensitive, and extremely insightful!!!

OK, down to business.

Any business owner out there will agree that in today's competitive environment, preserving the confidentially of your client lists, sales information, and the sources where you buy your inventory is vital.

Such information is rightly considered an important corporate asset, and is of a proprietary nature.

As such, this matter was, and in fact still is, proprietary.

That's why I have not discussed this event publicly until now, for as Bill tried to say, it WAS resolved nearly a year ago, in writing, DIRECTLY with the individual collectors affected, and life went on!

In fact, most of those clients affected, in turn, did not even feel themselves that it was a large enough issue to require public comment, except for those occasional collectors, such as Bill, who independently chose to praise Peachstate's actions publically.

Further, in many cases, the recall resulted in the loss of only a single questionable item from their collections, leaving them with many more wonderful, and authentic, Peachstate items.

Their typical refund also gave them the resources to purchase an inscribed Armstrong 8x10 Portrait, as so many now recommend.

However, for the sake of clearing the air, let me chat a little more about what Bill refered to.

As I do so, please consider some of the philosophical and ethical issues that I was faced with, and how I addressed them.

Peachstate buys and sells tremendous amounts of space-related material.

In fact, I venture to say that we may be the largest venue for space manuscript material, and certified flown space artifacts, outside of the auction environment.

As such, I am frequently offered large amounts of prospective merchandise to evaluate, and possible purchase for inventory. These opportunities often occur on the road, and require an immediate purchase decision.

As Peachstate enter's it's sixth year in business, I'm pleased to say that, in 98% of the cases, my instincts were correct with regard to the quality of Peachstate's purchases.

However, concerns have arisen in regard to the quality of some material that was part of the first hoard we ever purchased, in 1997.

As hoards go, it was a medium-sized example. Large numbers of hoards of autographed material DO exist for the majority of the astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, and the members of the Apollo 11 crew.

Let me emphasize this point, because I think that it is an important one.

Many of you have visited some of the recent autograph shows, and observed the astronauts signing, in some cases, hundreds of items for single individuals.

There is, to some degree, the "hoarder" instinct in many collectors.

Athough the Apollo 11 crewmenbers do not sign now, for nearly 30 years they DID just that, for FREE, and in large quantities under certain circumstances.

I also know of space collectors who boast of having hundreds of Armstrong autographs in their collection, and I do NOT doubt that what they are saying is true!

As a quick side note, which does have some relevance to Peachstate's acquisition of large hoards, I'm pleased to announce that we recently acquired a wonderful hoard that contains nearly 70 Apollo 11 crew-signed Insurance Covers!

With this in mind, Peachstate bought it's first hoard of material from a collector by the name of Ernest Haecker between December 7-9, 1997, who unfortunately passed away in April, 1998.

Ernest's collection consisted of a mix of parcels, originating, as he told me, from DIFFERENT sources. The fact that each parcel came to Ernest from different sources is an important point to me.

One parcel contained 122 Neil Armstrong signed 8x10 portraits, and a few Apollo 11 crew-portraits signed by Armstrong and Collins alone. Another parcel contained 57 Collins-signed portraits, while a third housed a few mixed Apollo 11 pieces signed by Armstrong and Collins alone. Finally, the fourth contained a few mixed Apollo 11 items signed by Armstrong only. Ernest also threw in some extra non-related material for free.

Again, these parcels all originated from DIFFERENT sources.

Peachstate made this purchase at a time, and in an environment, where very little astronaut autograph reference material existed.

Ernest was ALSO A CLIENT of Peachstate at the time, and buying FROM us as well as selling. My impression of his material WAS that is was authentic, and if any of the material was indeed bad, then Ernest was unaware of it.

I then advertised the hoard in a few of our early Autograph Collector Magazine Ads, beginning in the Spring of 1998, which illustrated generic examples.

The material was widely seen, and a rapid sellout then occured as the pieces were judged where it REALLY counted: in the marketplace! I might add that they were rapidly snapped-up with the same enthusiasm I felt when first viewing the material.

I must stress that some of my most vocal critics in this chatroom were ALSO eager purchasers of material from that hoard, and in some cases even came back for SECONDS!

As an important footnote, I received requests for refunds from a grand total of only three (3) people from the time that sales commenced, in 1998, through February 25, 2001, the date of our recall letter.

A return rate of only 1-2%, from the broad space-autograph collecting community, certainly did not set off any warning bells!

By the Spring of 1999, I finally got on line, and for the first time had the opportunity to examine DAILY a constant stream of Armstrong-autographed material on e-bay.

This was a welcome change to an occasional hoard that I might only have a few hours to examine on the road.

As with many of you, it WAS an eye-opening experience.

I knew from discussions with current and retired NASA employees, teachers, and others offering me material for sale that large amounts of Armstrong autographed material existed, but I never realized quite HOW much!

As I followed the Armstrong autographs on e-bay (in some case up to 30 different items per WEEK), I began to hone my sense of what was, and was not, authentic.

I think that if many of those reading this posting will be completely honest with themselves, that is when MANY of us began to develop some expertise.

In the winter of 2000, Steve Koschal of the IACC asked if I would write an Armstrong Signature Study for the IACC.

It was Steve's idea, and NOT mine, but it sounded like a great challenge.

I thought it WAS a good idea, as the only published information (outside of auction catalogs) was RELICS, which illustrated a grand total of six (6) authentic Armstrong autographs.

And of those six, two (2) examples came from Peachstate (Insurance Covers)!

I primarily utilized a large library of photocopies, compiled over the years, of Armstrong material in all formats. Most were photocopied for reference purposes as I saw them in passing.

Let me touch briefly upon my Signature Study.

I DO NOT consider myself an Armstrong autograph "expert", as others sometimes claim I am.

Regardless, I still felt that compiling and presenting large quantities of Armstrong autographs, in a portable and neatly-organized format, would be of great benefit to the community.

I then invested six months, and $5,000.00 of my own money, to produce the study, which was then distributed FREE through the International Autograph Collectors Club.

My Study was also a work that was done with humility and caution.

This should be obvious through my statements in the introduction, such as "we caution the readers to draw their own conclusions as to authenticity, and "I beg the reader's understanding should any errors or omissions occur".

This was followed up by further comments, in the body of the work, such as "this is an art, not a science".

Folks, there are no Gurus in this field!

Do your homework, buy from reputable dealers who will stand behind their merchandise, and PLEASE don't listen to someone just because they YELL the loudest in a Web Chatroom, or e-group list!

Back to the Study.

I truly apologize for not issuing credit for individual pieces in the study, but these items change hands so frequently, and I had no idea who owned what!

Concerns began to be raised that a couple of the items illustrated in the study were forgeries, including the two specific pieces from the Haecker collection.

I wanted to exhibit material from a BROAD spectrum of sources, and I felt that two examples would be a good representative sampling of the Haecker material. The "To David" piece did not originate from the Haecker hoard, but was photocopied in passing over the years.

Let me play Devil's Advocate, and say that a total of four pieces in the Study were questionable, leaving another SIXTY-SIX authentic examples.

Folks, I am proud of a 94% success rate on what was both a very difficult undertaking, and also my FIRST TRY. However, I certainly respect other's opinions.

In the summer of 2000, my Study was released, and won widespread praise, along with the Charles Hamilton Literary Award.

However, I was not then, nor am I NOW, an "expert" on Armstrong's handwriting, nor is anyone else in this forum that I am aware of!!!

Back to the timeline.

In late August, 2000, concerns began to be raised about the Armstrong 8x10's from the Haecker hoard.

As all of the authenticity issues centered squarely ONLY upon those Armstrong's that I knew originated from the Haecker parcel, I began experiencing considerable self-doubt about that SPECIFIC group of pieces.

Larry McGlynn, and others that I confided in at that time, were first-hand witnesses to the considerable soul searching that I went through.

That may be why he is speaking out so forcefully now in this matter.

On August 28, 2000, I wrote to the family of Ernest Haecker to try to learn the names of the various individuals who, in turn, had sold Ernest each separate parcel.

On August 30, 2000, they responded and informed me that Ermest had never discussed the source of his space material with them, and they could not be of assistance.

On September 5, 2000, with a growing sense of unease, I wrote a letter to Darrell Talbert, President of Odyssey Publications, and publisher of Autograph Collector Magazine.

Given that I had marketed items from the hoard in that venue, I wanted to express my concerns with Darrell, who is also a friend.

I decided to adopt a "wait and see" attitude through the Fall, as I did not want to make a hasty error.

In the meantime, criticism from certain quarters about the Armstrong's continued unabated. Then, by the beginning of 2001, the "Flag" Study was released.

It was an intruging theory, athough I know from personal experience that exceptions do exist.

However, it WAS simply the FINAL straw that broke the camel's back on those items.

I refused to allow 2% of my sales tarnish the other wonderful 98% of the authentic material Peachstate has proudly sold over half a decade!

I also could not ethically allow any questionable pieces to remain in the hands of our clientele.

When Peachstate sells an item, we issue a Bill of Sale (not a so-called "COA) that guarantees the authenticity of our merchandise to the original purchaser.

As Doc AGAIN correctly stated, opinions CAN shift over time, especially in a field a lacking in scholarship as space autographs, and as a reputable professional dealer I acted accordingly.

Thus, on February 25, 2001, I issued recall letters, expressing my concerns in writing.

The letter offered an immediate refund, and then some. Most of our collectors agreed with my cautious approach, and returned them.

Some felt that their particuliar examples were authentic, either because the signature was NOT on the flag, or for other reasons.

I respect their decisions, as we are dealing in shades of gray, and they also know that refunds will be forthcoming in the future, if required.

Peachstate has never resold items which are returned due to legitimate concerns regarding authenticity!

A sugestion was made to me to ask that any returns be cut-up prior to mailing, to give those returning them absolute assurance that they would not be resold, and I employed their suggestion.

Over the years, I had Buzz Aldrin complete some of the items signed by Armstrong and Collins. Because the Apollo 11 portraits originated from the SAME parcel as the Armstrong 8x10's, I automatically recalled them as well, and most were returned.

Ladies and Gentleman, there you have it, in a long "nutshell".

Some final points.

James Brown has made a factually incorrect statement.

For the record, I DO have every issue of "last years" Autograph Collector Magazine Ad's for Peachstate in our files.

The item that James alluded Peachstate advertised in Autograph Collector Magazine never appeared as he stated, much less existed in the first place!!!

Further, the only business James ever tried to conduct with Peachstate occured when he recently showed up on our doorstep, and attempted to sell me a Mercury-7 signed photograph.

Larry McGlynn had already turned him down, and I did also, as I thought his asking price was too high.

Ladies and Gentleman, please consider the contradiction of someone who was EAGER to do business with a firm whom they NOW accuse of doctoring one of their OWN original items!

In reality, the ONLY Apollo 11 crew-signed portrait which DID appear "last year" (2000) in our advertising was a beautiful example purchased by none other than Russ Still.

Russ purchased his personal Apollo 11 crew-signed portrait from Peachstate on May 8, 1998, and presumably still owns it ....

...along with the other 30 - 40 items Russ acquired has from Peachstate over the years.

I used the Russ Still Apollo 11 crew-portrait, along with a number of other pieces that we have sold in the past, to create a beautiful photographic advertising "montage" for our ads.

Now, with regard to the "notorious" lithographs.

One of the things which quickly became evident to me as Peachstate's business took-off in late 1997, and early 1998, was that everyone wanted NASA lithographs.

It quickly dawned on me that NASA lithos would make a great promotional "giveaway" to the hundreds of folks calling in, and expressing interest in our goods and services.

And at the TOP of everyone's litho wantlist were Apollo 11, and Armstrong, lithographs.

Therefore, they are INDEED what I eagerly sought out!

Unfortunately, I had no idea where quantities of them could be acquired.

Someone suggested I call a fellow who goes by the alias of "Mr. Mint", which I did on March 12, 1998.

I asked Mr. Mint what lithographs typically sold for, and did not receive a direct answer.

Rather, he insisted that I quote HIM a price.

Unaware of what a fair-price was, I offered him $10.00 each, which Mr. Mint eagerly snapped up.

Thus, on March 12, 1998, I purchased twenty-six (26) pieces from Mr. Mint, paying via Check No. 1124, for $260.00.

Incidently, Mr. Mint, Peachstate DOES believe in paying via check, as opposed to untracable cash, as we routinely require written records with which to prepare our Corporate Returns, and pay our taxes.

We ALSO routinely send ALL of our merchandise, and correspondence, via Fed Ex.

They give us a tracking system, free courier pick-up and packaging materials, and automatic coverage with our insurance carrier!

Peachstate then purchased another thirteen (13) lithographs from Mr. Mint on April 22, 1998, paying via Check No. 1152.

After learning that I had overpaid for Mr. Mint's lithographs, I found another source that only charged me $3.00 or so per unit, and I simply chose not to do business with him again.

Such is the nature of the free-market economy in our great nation!

As my contacts within the industry rapidly grew, I learned of the multitude of sources where large quantities of lithographs for EVERY astronaut and crew could be obtained.

Then, over the years, Peachstate proceeded to stockpile them to give as gifts to both prospective clients who called in, and existing clients.

On the subject of Ads, Peachstate IS proud to have just run it's forty-first consecutive full-page Autograph Collector Magazine Ad.

Our Ad's appear in the most PROMINENT position (across from the Table of Contents Page) of the most PROMINENT Autograph magazine in the industry.

My hope is that they have exposed thousands of new collectors to the world of space collectibles!

Ladies and Gentleman, I have ALWAYS made myself extremely accessible to the multitude of collectors, institutions, and other parties who require access to me.

I have done this via my toll-free number, my e-mail, and visits by appointment.

However, folks, one thing has gradually become painfully clear through the recent thread.

I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SENSITIVE to outside concerns regarding this atypical occurance in Peachstate' corporate history.

I simply felt that I had ALREADY addressed the problem in the appropiate forum: namely, privately, and in writing, with those collectors DIRECTLY involved.

If I ever appeared insensitive, or "aloof" in any way with regard to this matter, then I sincerely apologize, for that was never my intent!

I hereby extend an olive branch out to any and all, and look forward to becoming a more active participant on Robert Pearlman's Website, AS time permits.

I will be delighted to answer questions, regarding the subject at hand, that do not involve the release of proprietary corporate, or client, information.

Again, let me wish you all a VERY happy and healthy holiday season, and a New Year filled with health, wealth, happiness and love, and the TIME to enjoy them.

Most sincerely,

posted 11-25-2001 10:23 PM               

I do recall chatting with you about VALUSIGN, prior to its launch, and sharing my personal concerns with you.

However, in the interest of goodwill, and the offer on my part to bury the hatchet, I have deleted that sentence from my post.

posted 11-26-2001 09:20 AM               

I guess since I don't do artifacts, my collection is not really worth a large sum but it does provide me with a great diversion to work. I can count the number of items I've sold to other collectors on one hand. I can count the number of trades I've made with other collectors on probably two hands. These transactions have all been done by personal contact. I have yet to sell anything on Ebay. I keep threatening that one of these days I'll probably sell a few extras to upgrade but I really don't have time now. I don't see that I can be considered a dealer by just about any definition. If you want to really stretch, I guess I'd admit to being a dealer but I think that everyone would qualify under that rule.

I do understand the hoarding nature that Mr. Frohman has spoken about. I think there is a bit of that in everyone. When I see a good deal, I'll buy a few extras.

With my introduction complete, I would like to respond to a few points made by Mr. Frohman that started this thread. I will make several posts so they are not all novels and only include my introduction with this one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peachstate:
Peachstate buys and sells tremendous amounts of space-related material.

However, concerns have arisen in regard to the quality of some material that was part of the first hoard we ever purchased, in 1997.

As hoards go, it was a medium-sized example. Large numbers of hoards of autographed material DO exist for the majority of the astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, and the members of the Apollo 11 crew.

As a quick side note, which does have some relevance to Peachstate's acquisition of large hoards, I'm pleased to announce that we recently acquired a wonderful hoard that contains nearly 70 Apollo 11 crew-signed Insurance Covers!

With this in mind, Peachstate bought it's first hoard of material from a collector by the name of Ernest Haecker between December 7-9, 1997, who unfortunately passed away in April, 1998.

One parcel contained 122 Neil Armstrong signed 8x10 portraits, and a few Apollo 11 crew-portraits signed by Armstrong and Collins alone. Another parcel contained 57 Collins-signed portraits, while a third housed a few mixed Apollo 11 pieces signed by Armstrong and Collins alone. Finally, the fourth contained a few mixed Apollo 11 items signed by Armstrong only. Ernest also threw in some extra non-related material for free.

Again, these parcels all originated from DIFFERENT sources.

I knew from discussions with current and retired NASA employees, teachers, and others offering me material for sale that large amounts of Armstrong autographed material existed, but I never realized quite HOW much!

As I followed the Armstrong autographs on e-bay (in some case up to 30 different items per WEEK), I began to hone my sense of what was, and was not, authentic.

I think that if many of those reading this posting will be completely honest with themselves, that is when MANY of us began to develop some expertise.

---

Anyway, then to find that 122 perfect SPs from Armstrong isn't even a major find. It is just a small blip in the Peachstate inventory. That just reinforces to me why I collect. I like personally inscribed pieces that I get from the astronauts myself. They mean something to me that dollars don't buy.

As for 70 Apollo 11 Insurance Covers, isn't it true that those are from the ex-wife of an Apollo astronaut? You have their trust, so one would expect you to make those kinds of deals. There has sure been an increase in those A11 covers on Ebay and they are not getting particularly great prices. Also, watch out - one ex-wife had some autopens in the last Superior auction! I realize that is not the case here but I couldn't resist!

One final point, we all realize that there are a dozen or so Armstrong items per week on Ebay. Vivian White has told me that Mr. Armstrong is also aware of this and has stated that the vast majority are not authentic. He hopes this will make the market on his signature collapse. As for other large numbers, I never see hoards (even small ones) offered at the auctions. I do see many of the same items traded over and over again as they move from collection to collection. A very large fraction of those are inscribed. I plan to make my later posts much shorter.

Best regards,

posted 11-26-2001 09:49 AM               

Four years of trading does not make one a reverred national institution - it makes one a newcomer, and given that for at least half those 4 years almost 200 fakes were sold into the collecting community its hardly a track record to be proud of. A bit of humility and a heartfelt apology would have been a more appropriatte statement.

posted 11-26-2001 10:31 AM            

quote:

---

As an important footnote, I received requests for refunds from a grand total of only three (3) people from the time that sales commenced, in 1998, through February 25, 2001, the date of our recall letter.

A return rate of only 1-2%, from the broad space-autograph collecting community, certainly did not set off any warning bells!

---

Moto Shintani

posted 11-26-2001 10:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peachstate:
Let me play Devil's Advocate, and say that a total of four pieces in the Study were questionable, leaving another SIXTY-SIX authentic examples.

Folks, I am proud of a 94% success rate on what was both a very difficult undertaking, and also my FIRST TRY. However, I certainly respect other's opinions.

In the summer of 2000, my Study was released, and won widespread praise, along with the Charles Hamilton Literary Award.

However, I was not then, nor am I NOW, an "expert" on Armstrong's handwriting, nor is anyone else in this forum that I am aware of!!!

---

Next, I think your statistics include some apples and oranges comparisions. For the Plate IX on page (25) you appear to be 13 of 14 on inscribed examples. The glaring example of questionable being the "To DADID-" inscribed WSS. That is 93% and not good but maybe OK for a concise study. On Plate X that shows uninscribed examples on page (25) you are 9 of 11. This would seem to be a totally unacceptable 82%.

The other items in your sample are ones that for the most part have superb history and tracking. These are letters, limited editions, insurance covers, ... One does not expect to find fakes in these kind of items or even on inscribed examples.

I think that at least, you owe the IACC an apology along with the many collectors who have made purchases based on information they may have seen in the Concise Autograph Study. It is a big responsibility to write what is considered as a reference book for an entire subject. It is an honor to do so and if you did not feel qualified, you should have made that clear and declined the invitation.

I hope I'm not coming across as too acerbic. That is not my intention but these are serious matters among collectors. I have heard some real skeptics voice the opinion that the purpose of the Study was to legitimize a signature style known to be highly questionable.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on the Concise Autograph Study.

posted 11-26-2001 10:48 AM               

Dave --

I'll be honest. Prior to your response above, I had serious doubts about your involvement in what we now can refer to as the Haecker hoard. Without any forthcoming information from you, I had no choice but to recommend to collectors who came to me for advice that it might be best to avoid dealings with Peachstate.

By agreeing to let your guard down and share your side of the story I feel you have taken a good first step to reestablishing (at least) my faith in Peachstate's offerings.

That said, I still have a few questions after reading your response:

1. Regardless of what Haecker claimed at the time, do you still believe that the hoard you acquired in 1997 was assembled from different sources?
   
2. Do you still acquire autographs from sources who cannot verify where and when the astronaut signed?
   
3. As you say you have documentation to support all your transactions, would you be willing to share this paperwork with an independent source (this person could sign an NDA if necessary) so as to have someone else who could further verify what you write?
   
4. Will you be publishing an addendum to the Armstrong study to identify the pieces which are now known to be suspect, so as not to perpetuate any misinformation?
   

posted 11-26-2001 11:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peachstate:
I wanted to exhibit material from a BROAD spectrum of sources, and I felt that two examples would be a good representative sampling of the Haecker material. The "To David" piece did not originate from the Haecker hoard, but was photocopied in passing over the years.

---

This is an experiment that anyone with a copy of the Study can perform. Do a Xerox of Plate IX and Plate X. The "N" is the worst violator in this signature variant. Using your copies, overlay the pages and match the "N" in Neil. It is virtually autopen quality in the match. You can not get this to work with any other combination of major letters that I have found in the Study. In fact, you do not even hardly have to rotate the photo. They are even at the same angle. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert, guru, or forensic examiner but I don't think this is rocket science either. This is like finding out which one is an autopen. We don't need experts for that.

Mr. Frohman, I believe that if you find the source of this piece, you may be able to trace the rest of the problems.

posted 11-26-2001 11:06 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peachstate:
...through February 25, 2001, the date of our recall letter.

---

quote:

---

I also could not ethically allow any questionable pieces to remain in the hands of our clientele.

---

posted 11-26-2001 11:13 AM               

Having known David personally for a few years now, first as a client and then as a friend sharing a similar past flying career, I can say without hesitation that he's very passionate about what he does and always strives to do the right thing.

I have seen first hand some of his "personal" dealings with the astronauts and have seen the respect and admiration they have for him and his work. Does that mean (like all of us) he doesn't make mistakes? Of course not. Since we all make mistakes, the measure of one's character is HOW they respond AFTER that mistake. Did David take awhile to respond to the allegations? Probably. But for some people even if he would have replied the next day that wouldn't have been soon enough. And he did respond (admitting his mistake) to the people that were affected first and foremost...his clients.

The fact that David didn't rush out and announce to the world-at-large that he may have sold some questionable material, shouldn't be the ONE fact his entire character (and business) is judged. But like "blood in the water" a few collectors/dealers chose that one point to rally upon and attack him (and it's BS to say the earlier posts didn't do that....anyone with a third grade education can read between the lines). And let's be honest here... the vast majority of collector's may not be dealers by definition, by have dealt (material) with others in some way, shape or form. And many of those "collectors" are the ones jumping on the crucifixion bandwagon. DO NOT misunderstand my point here. I respect many of those collectors for their vast knowledge in this field, but to say (as some have on earlier posts) that they aren't "dealers" is BS.

Back to the point at hand. In my book, it can be summed up this way:

(1) Did Peachstate distribute some questionable signed material?... Yes

(2) Upon thoughtful and careful analysis of the material (remember the "art" not a "science" cliche´´) did Peachstate contact those concerned and "recall" those items?... Yes

(3) Did Peachstate do the honorable thing and refund the money paid for those items, sometimes years after the fact?... Yes

(4) Knowing the impact on the hobby and questions raised concerning those items, should Peachstate have come out earlier and addressed those questions and concerns?... Yes

(5) No matter what Peachstate says or does are there always going to be those who find fault with them?... Yes

In my book, Peachstate has a pretty good track record. Am I biased....probably. Again, because I've seen Peachstate's dealings and have seen the length to which David goes out of his way for both his clients and those institutions he deals with. But everyone has to make their own judgement and all I'm saying is how fair is it to form an opinion solely based on this one issue? Maybe there are other concerns, I don't know. But I do know based on the previous posts that no matter what David and Peachstate do, they are always going to be a target of some and its a no-win situation for them.

Before I close, I like to add that David did not ask me in any way to be a "mouth" for him. There are a few collector's out there that believe if you say something good about someone that you must be a plant. Those collector's know who they are and are morons in my book. I have nothing to gain by posting here and only wish to express MY opinion on this issue.

Again, I want to thank David and Peachstate for having the courage to air it's "dirty laundry' and addressing those issued raised by some collectors in this forum.

posted 11-26-2001 12:13 PM               

This other source is me, and indeed it was several years ago. If my memory is correct (I could look it up, but the quantity doesn't really matter), I sold Frohman over 100 Apollo 11 related UNSIGNED lithos and glossies. Most were standard lithos, but there were also a few very very nice ones included in the lot: A color glossy of the Apollo 11 launch and a color glossy of the commemorative Plaque on the LM leg. These were color numbered NASA glossies from Houston. I have bought probably 25,000+ photos in the last 10 years, and these particular images I had never seen before or since. I had bought them a few months earlier from a man who was a NASA photographer in the 60's and 70's, along with about 1000 other photos. I kept one copy for my collection and sold Frohman 3 or 4 copies each of liftoff and the plaque.

Some months later, and it can be checked I'm sure, I find that Peachstate is selling the launch and plaque photos fully signed by the crew, with the usual insipid inscription by Aldrin. I believe he even had Duke sign 1 or 2 of the launch photos. Hmmmm....I knew he had access to Aldrin and Duke, but...?

posted 11-26-2001 12:35 PM               

"I primarily utilized a large library of photocopies, compiled over the years, of Armstrong material in all formats. Most were photocopied for reference purposes as I saw them in passing."

Then how did you obtain the photocopy of the images used on Page 23? They are in my ownership. I purchased it from the original recipient on EBay, and then advertised some time later on Ebay and they were bought by an aquaintence of mine, a few months ago I traded it back. So its entire ownership history has been these three people - the original recipient, the next owner and myself - at no time did you ever have ownership and thus did not have the ability or the right to make a photocopy.

No, the only way you could have obtained the images used on page 23 was that you have downloaded and used the images without obtaining prior permission and then used them in a publication that was sold for profit - and as I understand it this is against copyright law.

posted 11-26-2001 01:04 PM              

Have you, or anyone in your employ, ever applied, i.e., forged, Neil Armstrong and/or Mike Collins signatures, and knowingly sold them as authentic to unsuspecting clientele? After complaints started to surface about the legitimacy of these signatures, did Peachstate then start recalling these items in order to cover up the fact that a crime had been committed?

Mr. Frohman's explaination of events gives an implied response of "no" to these questions. With the unfortunate passing of Mr. Haecker, it appears the trail of being able to determine with greater accuracy the origins of the very suspect "Haecker Hoard" is a cold one indeed, or at least one that is not easily resuscitatable. If Mr. Frohman is an individual of integrity, as his supporters and defenders insist, this is indeed unfortunate for him, as being able to track down, to a degree of very little uncertainty, the origin of the bad Armstrong/Collins/Apollo 11 material would go even further in removing any doubts about Mr. Frohman's claims. As Mr. Frohman's story either cannot or will not be independently verified, (in the sake of fairness, neither can the suspicions of his detractors), we are, unfortunately, left with a "problem" without a definitive solution.

posted 11-26-2001 01:20 PM               

Has anyone made any extensive comparison of Michael Collins' signature on these pieces against a) verifiable Collins signatures and b) the Haecker crew photos? Point a could help establish the issue of forgery and point b would give an indication of whether or not the forging was still in progress on new pieces, or whether it was limited to a single old batch of photos.

I raise this point as an entirely disinterested third party with no axe to grind and definitely no desire to be cast as a Peachstate supporter or detractor. I just believe that the results of such an examination should presumably be of value to either 'side' in adding weight to their assertions.

posted 11-26-2001 01:28 PM               

What we got instead was some more friends posting posts of how wonderful a person he is as a follow up to HIS post about what a wonderful person he is. And yes I can't help but think people were urged to come forth on his behalf. I dont see a THING wrong with that, and in fact, would be disappointed if his friends did NOT. So I guess that makes me a moron John.

However, instead of singing his praises, which we've seen and heard ad nauseum, especially from the "great one" himself, it would be great to see some straight forward answers instead of spin like a former party would be proud of.

Now I fully expect everyone to come forth and accuse me of being a competing dealer (<LOL> good one) and of course "attacking him", neither of which could be further from the truth and of course, more spin. But I'm simply someone who has heard the concerns for quite some time, see more and more questions being asked (and none REALLY being answered DIRECTLY) and it still floating out there in a vacuum. So those who sing praises, help the guy out. Let's help him clear the air here.

We already know what a wonderful person he is.

Man where is "The No Spin Zone" when we need it.

posted 11-26-2001 02:12 PM               

First, let me apologize for the numerous "edits" last night.

This was the first time that I used the board, and I kept using the edit function as a word processer to correct sentence structure, ect.

Opps!!!

I also wanted to "soften" some of my original statements, as I wanted this discussion to remain a positive one, and also hopefully mend some fences with a few important people.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and the hobby would be far better if we all worked together, rather then as adversaries.

Part of my tunnel-vision in this whole affair was that I viewed it TOO much as an internal corporate affair, and NOT enough as an issue that affected the broader hobby.

For making me aware of that, I thank you.

Let me discuss my rationale in dealing with the matter in greater detail, which may help clear up some misconceptions that may still exist.

I will then address some of today's questions.

I may have been unclear, but the Armstrong 8x10 material was NOT all the same.

There WERE different signature styles, different inks that were employed, and examples in which the writing did NOT touch the flag.

In other words, there was a fair amount of diversity in the grouping.

As such, I just did not know which way to go with the material. Some of the Armstrong 8x10's may WELL have been authentic.

Thus, I went through a mental "tug of war" with the material, which was witnessed by numerous individuals.

Finally, I adopted a middle road approach.

The first thing that I felt needed to be done was to establish a financial "safety-net" under those clients who I felt were MOST vunerable.

Those were the folks that were relying SOLELY upon my opinion ALONE for owning the piece.

It was to those folks alone (who owned the majority of the pieces) that I proactively contacted with my recall, and offered a refund.

I essentially told them that "I know you own the piece because Peachstate believes it to be authentic, but now we just don't know"!

The majority of the holders of those pieces wisely, in my estimation, decided to follow up on my caution, and return the items.

However, a much smaller catagory of reciprients consisted of professional dealers, and advanced space collectors.

The professional dealers, as a course of being in business, form their OWN opinions of the material that they buy.

Given my substantial uncertainty a year ago, regarding what, if any, of the items were indeed even inauthentic, I wished to respect their opinions.

I also knew that we would automatically here back from them if there was ever a problem.

Regarding the advanced space collectors who held a few examples, I knew that they were already "plugged-in" to all of the discussions and research being conducted on an on-going basis.

In conversations that I had with some of them, also on an ongoing basis, I assured them that I would honor their wishes in whatever course of action they chose.

Again, everyone who bought an item from that group of material is still a Peachstate client, and as such, they still enjoy a money-back guarantee should they which to employ it.

But please remember, everyone ultimately forms their own opinions, which I MUST respect.

I consider Joe Davies to be an advanced space collector, and enjoyed his analysis of Armstrong autographs which appeared on his website a few years back.

I was always here for Joe to drop me a quick e-mail if his opinion shifted, and he wanted a refund.

I hereby publicily apologize to Joe for any slight he may have felt in this matter.

I would also be delighted to discuss this sitution with Joe privately, as this is a client matter.

Joe, please feel free to e-mail me at frohman@bellsouth.net. I will look forward to hearing from you.

Let me briefly touch on your questions.

At the time, I believed that Ernest was telling me truth, and must still give him the benefit of the doubt.

Otherwise, logic suggests that I never would have acquired the material in the first place.

The VAST (90%+) majority of Peachstate's material, including the current surreal hoard of Apollo 11 Insurance Covers, came DIRECTLY from an astronaut, or their family.

Speaking of the Insurance Covers, they have already all been snapped-up, except for a few remaining examples.

Of the other material, yes, I typically require first-hand information about where the item came from.

However, with the Haecker hoard, this was my first large purchase, and I was so impressed by both the volume, and diversity, of the material that I did not ask as many questions as I SHOULD HAVE.

To date, approximate 70 of the pieces have been returned.

Of the remainder in the field, for one reason or another the entity holding the item wishes to keep it. The signature may not be on the flag, there may be a different style signature, ect.

Remember, the possibility still exists that some or all of it may be genuine!

I would also expect additional pieces to trickle in over time for refunds, which will be immediately addressed.

This hoard was the ONE AND ONLY exception to our extremely strict standards that have evolved over half a decade in this business.

Further, the ONLY returns that Peachstate has EVER experienced concerned pieces from this hoard, which also told me something.

Another quick comment about lithos.

Peachstate has acquired thousands of NASA lithos and photos from numerous sources over the years, including Donnis.

The lithos and photos arrive in cardboard boxes, and get dumped in cardboard boxes by the hundreds.

Typically, we order them specifically by mission number or astronaut, without being too selective about particuliar image.

They are simply items that we buy in bulk, and then casually distribute without much examination as long as the mission, or astronaut pictured, matches what the reciprient asked for.

As long as the total count matched the number of units that we ordered from Donnis, that was what mattered at the time.

They were counted, and went into a big box with many others.

Regarding the Study, I would like to propose something that goes BEYOND a simple annendum.

Why don't we ALL pool our resources, and create an on-line Armstrong autograph data base on collectSpace itself!

We would all submit images that we JOINTLY can agree upon. For my part, I would be delighted to scan numerious examples of the Armstrong signatures on the Insurance Covers!

Robert may wish to give this some thought.

Finally, given that Peachstate is required to keep excellent records, we do indeed have all of the original paperwork, and follow-up letters, associated with the hoard.

I have great respect for Robert Pearlman, and will permit him to see the original documents pertaining to the acquisition.

But please remember, guys, I've GOT to run Peachstate according to certain levels of accounting and legal standards, and many of those require strict confidentially.

Finally, I would like to thank John Wardell, and some of the other great folks for posting.

MOST respectfully,

posted 11-26-2001 02:17 PM               

With all due respect, please do not take my words out of context. My 'moron' comment, albeit a bit strong, was made to make a point. I have seen countless posts by individuals accusing others as being "mouthpieces" or encouraged by someone else to speak on their behalf. While I can't speak for everyone, I can speak for myself and was a little disappointed with your post basically calling my a liar (if I'm one of the "friends" you refer to.)You are free to think what you want, but coming from someone who knows me personally, it was nonetheless surprising.

As far as David's post....I am not responsible for what information he includes or doesn't include. Sure, parts of it might have been self-serving, but he's addressing the issue. Maybe not as deeply as some would like, but as I wrote to Russ in my second post....it is a start.

Last time I checked we didn't live in Dictatorship where one's demands must be instantly met. IOW, give the guy a chance to respond to the other questions. Again, the way he responded might not be the way you or I would have, but that's what we have to work with.

My first post wasn't met as a spin on what Frohman had to say (maybe you need to go back and re-read it.) It was simply a response to the facts as I know them today.

Al, I know you to be a straight forward, knowledgeable guy and would expect you to see that what came out of the Peachstate post was effort to get some needed information out that may benefit the hobby. Maybe not enough information in your eyes, I'm not arguing that point one way or another. But this was only his first post and would hope those specific legitimate gripes from some collectors will be addressed.

And for the record, I don't think you're a moron <G>

posted 11-26-2001 02:48 PM               

Thanks for your posting. I can take parts and refute them but what good would it do? Its not the point of all of this anyway. All I'll say is I didnt take a thing out of context, but thanks for your concern. Maybe I just feel this way when someone starts posting pathetic (VERY pathetic) threats whether on his behalf or not. I may be mistaken about YOUR motiviation, but as I said your motivation is irrelevant anyway as I would HOPE his friends support him. It just doesnt make me a moron for thinking he may have asked people to post.

Since you DO know me, then you know full well I have no personal or professional ax to grind with Frohman. Nor do I stand to gain one way or the other no matter the outcome as you also know first hand. You also know that I have very strong feelings about the hobby - strong POSITIVE feelings.

But this is where we part ways. While I respect the fact he has taken the time to post here, I still say his first posting was more "how wonderful I am" than addressing the issues. His second did little to allay my - or anyone elses feelings - so far.

Theres a bunch of questions out there. Instead of all the smoke in the posts, it would be best for all concerned if he just took each question, one by one, and answered it.

That he chooses not to only obfuscates the situation further. My post was simply asking that we keep it to issues without all the attendant back clapping. OK Ill take it on faith hes the "Godsend" to the hobby. Now lets PLEASE address the issues DIRECTLY.

When I met him, he seemed like a nice guy. I've no quarrel with him personally or professionally but the fact remains, deserved, real or imagined, theres some concerns out there. If he chooses to address these concerns with spin, it only furth exacerbates the issue. It would be nice if these fears, again, real OR imagined, were eliminated. For all of us, him mostly.

Thats all.

posted 11-26-2001 04:20 PM               

However, the most important thing & what all this has been about has remained cloudy: the actual origin of the large number of Apollo 11-related autographed items that P'state sold back in the '90's. We have been told that everything involved in the P'state recall came from a mysterious now-deceased collector by the name of Ernest Haecker & attempts to get information about his "hoard" from his family were unsuccessful.

But now it looks like we're finally getting somewhere!

Now we are told that Mr. Frohman has agreed to share the original paperwork & follow-up letters relating to the Haecker Hoard acquisition with Robert Pearlman. This is great news &, finally, some proof of where the Hoard originated from may be forthcoming. Such a disclosure would clear up a lot of questions & I'm sure most of us will be anxiously awaiting Robert's report on the "hard evidence."

posted 11-26-2001 05:32 PM              

Al, you asked for direct answers. I feel David has been very forthcoming. He has been open to suggestions and has acted on those suggestions to clear up this matter.

Bottom line is this:

First of all, I'm sure there are some reading this thread that have already dismissed any concerns about Peachstate. The issue has been asked and answered.

Second, there are those that truly have lingering questions or suspicions and are open to the evidence that will and has been offered. They will make an informed determination.

Then, there will be a group that no matter what support or verification is offered will still see a smoking gun.

posted 11-26-2001 05:46 PM               

But truthfully that they came from a deceased person who's family has no knowledge of this is no help. And believe me, my family may not know SPECIFICS of what I do, but they sure know when I get a hoard of something (which I do not have of anything) or any large quantity and certainly know my habits.

Is this just a poor circumstantial situation for Peachstate? May well be. But it still leaves a lot dangling.

If you're satisfied this easily then good for you. But when we're talking about purchases of this amount, and as many items as there are, then I personally am not.

And no, Im not one of those smoking gun or not, who would never be satisfied. Don't you think answers with more context and provability to them would help him more than these glossed over ones?

Yup. Im cynical. Im not from Missouri, but you betcha Im cynical. Comes from years of my profession and with good reason. It's been my experience when someone has to spend 90% of their conversation on everything BUT the subject then the 10% is being glossed over - for whatever motivation.

So far all I see is his friends saying he's doing a wonderful job in his replies. Oh sure people like me have praised him for coming forth, and I still will. But I'll praise him a LOT more when the answers put forth here are answered and the 90% (ego) is let go. Now, once more you say he's answering them; but no answer to Joe Davies question, rather a diatribe about advanced collectors and the offer is still there. I mean I can find many questions - MANY questions here still unanswered and when they are, coated like this one.

posted 11-26-2001 06:33 PM               

Al, please don't try to simplify my posts in a nice, neat one sentence response and are you READING the same posts? I was happy to see Dave come forward and attempt to answer some of the lingering questions concerning the Armstrong autographed photos. My posts in support of Peachstate (the fact that he posted a response to the signature concerns) were to thank him for opening the dialogue amongst collectors. I, like you, have nothing to gain or lose by all of this. And as I stated several times before (which seems to get lost in your one-liners) is I think this is a good START.

I'm trying to keep my posts on the subject at hand, but for some reason you feel the need to respond each time with something like "his friends" think he is wonderful, his replies are wonderful" etc. Please take the time to READ the posts if your going to take the time to criticize them.

posted 11-26-2001 07:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peachstate:
I consider Joe Davies to be an advanced space collector, and enjoyed his analysis of Armstrong autographs which appeared on his website a few years back.

---

posted 11-26-2001 07:42 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by johndw2:
My posts in support of Peachstate (the fact that he posted a response to the signature concerns) were to thank him for opening the dialogue amongst collectors.

---

posted 11-26-2001 08:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by albatron@aol.com:
I'm sorry Ricky, but I disagree. Yes he advised the items were from the Haeker hoard, then correct me if Im wrong, later said they were also from various sources? Or did I misread?

---

Best,

posted 11-26-2001 10:45 PM               

Is this subject EVER going to be taken care of? I mean to everyone's satisfaction? FBI? Come on.

I doubt that everyone here could be satisfied, anyway... but why should they be?

I'm not a close friend of DF, or a planted "mouth" but I do apologize to him for starting this mess... it was not my intent.

If I would have had the foresight to know where this would lead, I would have never made my original posting.

It's kinda like taking a ride on your bike, and causing a 15 car pile-up.

I hope that we can end this thing soon and get on with our lives.

posted 11-26-2001 11:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet@mailclick.com:
I continue to be AMAZED at the DF supporters who go on and on in such glowing terms about their dealings with Peachstate, but refuse to acknowledge the LEGITIMACY of the VERY SERIOUS questions that have been raised about Mr. Frohman's integrity.

---

quote:

---

People who really consider themselves friends of DF and who want to see his reputation fully cleared shouldn't fear the questions raised by people who have no other motive than to arrive at the truth.

---

Chet, I realize this is a sensitive issue that has many people concerned. And hopefully the information will continue to flow. But give the guy a chance to answer all the questions. And before judging people's views and opinions based on their membership in the "friends of DF" club, take the time to read what they have to say and then speak.

posted 11-27-2001 12:51 AM              

I think you have certainly been level headed enough, as I've tried to be, although it's clear to anyone which sides of the fence you and I have staked out. I hope you can be persuaded by evidence, or the preponderance thereof, however, as I am prepared to be.

My comments were meant for those who it seems cannot be persuaded by ANYTHING! Blind faith is an unnerving thing, and I can't understand why people will simply go on recounting the wonderful things about DF; they are IRRELEVANT to the questions at hand. I think our society has become too used to thinking about issues like this in courtroom terms, so that DF's defenders feel compelled to ask as character witnesses rather than as impartial observers. If I'd had nothing but good experiences with Peachstate, it still wouldn't keep me from being objective enough to judge things for what they were, not what I wanted them to be.