posted 11-27-2001 12:36 PM               

David replied to my request by agreeing to share the documents on the condition I respect the confidential information presented within. By yesterday evening, the paperwork was in my possession.

I decided (prior their arrival) that I would take the approach that the documents themselves were fakes and then try to find the proof needed to discredit them publicly.

I searched for any error that could point to the records being fabricated. To that end, I verified every address, date, and postmark found within the set. I also requested additional related documents from David, which he provided.

Unable to find any discrepencies which would point to the documents being faked, I re-focused my attention on vertifying the information David provided to this forum.

Based on the paperwork provided, I have come to accept the following:

• The documentation supports that David acquired a collection of Armstrong, Collins and Armstrong & Collins signed pieces from Ernest Haecker in 1997.

• The documentation supports the acquisition of three "parcels" of Armstrong and Collins material, not four as originally cited by David.

• Of the two "parcels" for which David provides quantities, both are confirmed by the records (122 Armstrong portraits and 57 Michael Collins portraits).

• Of the two "parcels" for which David does not provide quantities, it is possible for both to be accounted for by the third acquisition noted in the paperwork.

• Based on both information presented in the paperwork and obtained by collectSPACE independently, the existence of Ernest Haecker has been confirmed.

• Based on information obtained by collectSPACE independently, Ernest Haecker passed away in March of 1998, not April as originally cited by David.

• The records and outside sources have confirmed that Ernest Haecker was an autograph collector and at least part of his collection was sold to sources other than Peachstate.

• The documents support that Haecker represented to David that the autographs were authentic. The documents provide very basic provenance details.

• The paperwork confirms that David did try to find the source(s) of Ernest Haecker's collection of Apollo 11 autographs and that he was unsuccessful in doing so.

• The documents support that David did issue a voluntary recall for suspect Armstrong autographs sold to his clientele. Based on the records, the recall was handled on a per client basis.

• The documents indirectly support that the Ernest Haecker collection acquired by Peachstate in 1997 corresponds to the suspect autographs recalled in 2000.

posted 11-27-2001 01:30 PM               

I would like to follow up Robert's comments by FORCEFULLY making the following statements pertaining to this matter.

I have never forged any autographs.

I have never knowingly sold any material which I believed to be forged.

The material in question was an early acquisition in Peachstate's history, and represents only a few percent of total sales.

When reasonable concerns began to be raised about the material in question, I took the proactive step of contacting our clientele and offering refunds.

I have addressed the comments raised by Brown and Willis in my provious two posts.

Peachstate again offers to stand behind the guarantee stated on our Bills of Sale, and issue a full and immediate refund to anyone who purchased the items in question, from the Haecker Hoard, directly from Peachstate.

They include the Neil Armstrong signed Apollo 11 White Spacesuit Portrait, or Apollo 11 8x10 crew-signed portrait (of which approximately five (5) presently exist in the field).

I am also offering to refund the full original purchase price to any folks who purchased, from Peachstate, a Michael Collins Apollo 11 White Spacesuit Portrait, if desired.

I respectfully ask that any collectors holding these pieces contact me offline, at (888) 644-7322, or by e-mail at frohman@bellsouth.net, to address their returns.

Again, I apologize to all involved, and wish to stress that I look forward to working more closely with both CollectSpace, and Robert Pearlman, in the future.

Most respectfully,

posted 11-27-2001 01:42 PM               

Thanks
Dennis Talbot

posted 11-27-2001 02:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peachstate here:
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.

---

posted 11-27-2001 03:09 PM              

Thank you for the immediate post on your findings. We all appreicate your objectivity and impartiality.

A recall has been offered, questions addressed and David has apologized.

Maybe now we can put this issue behind us.

posted 11-27-2001 04:26 PM               

I too wish to thank you publicly for your efforts concerning Peachstate and the Armstrong photos. Dave made the right decision to have you review them, if only he would have done it sooner. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that those individuals who have specific claims against Peachstate for wrongdoing should also be asked to provide documentation to back up their claims. Where were all the "experienced" collectors when those claims were being made without any proof?

Again, Robert thanks for your efforts in this matter. As Ricky said, maybe now we can put this issue behind us.

posted 11-27-2001 04:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacerelic:
Maybe now we can put this issue behind us.

---

posted 11-27-2001 05:40 PM               

While I appreciate your efforts in this and think you did a wonderful job, there is still a lot unanswered. As you pointed out there is still the matter of forgeries here whether they came from Haecker or elsewhere. And as you ALSO pointed out, this is but a small portion of the unanswered questions and it isn't over.

Not to mention theres a lot you read, and said but for various confidentiality agreements cannot discuss. So you and he, are asking all of us to take this on blind trust. It would have been very helpful had there not have been a request for you to sign a NDA. This client confidentiality garbage is a good way to further avoid.

So I see this as, heres the books, you can read them but cannot share the info. No reflection on YOUR integrity at all.Bbut I think different people look at things different ways. I can guarantee you I would have looked at it far differently. NOT because I don't believe it, but I spent a career looking at situations like this and with fairness and objectivity.

So I ask you Mr. Frohman, allow me to review these items as well, with a witness - without confidentiality agreements. I have NO axe to grind, and my only stake in this is the elimination of ANY black eye in this hobby. I guarantee you, if this is all authentic as you claim (and Ive no reason to feel otherwise other than the mechanism utlized recently) then I will sound the trumpet loudly on your behalf.

posted 11-27-2001 05:54 PM               

Just a point of clarification. It was I who suggested the NDA in my original post.

As we must all recognize, David is trying to run a business. To ask him to distribute documents created as part of that business, even with the expectation for confidentiality, is a lot. I know having run my own business that if someone asked that I turn over client data to anyone other than the authorities (and with legal merit) I might have very well told that person (or group) to go where the sun doesn't shine (though I'd probably be a bit nicer about it <G> ).

posted 11-27-2001 10:05 PM               

One camp will claim that Mr. Frohman is guilty of nothing more than poor judgement and a victim of a series of very unfortunate and suspicious looking coincidences.

Another camp will claim that Robert's review proves nothing more than someone by the name of Ernest Haecker existed, and there are a number of documents which purport to highlight the particulars of a sale of a lot of autographs. The more skeptical could even think that such documents are nothing more than window dressing to create an appearance of provenance... and the documents may not reveal the true nature of the transaction between Haecker and PeachState.

So, where do we go from here? Perhaps some have been convinced one way or the other, but my sense is that this is not the case.

In my opinion, many questions have been unanswered with a satifactory degree of clarity, and I frankly don't see how personal documents between two private parties (e.g., not notarized, witnessed or legal documents) prove anything.

So, my guess is that this debate will never be truly resolved. PeachState supporters will attest to Mr. Frohman's congeniality and good service as his defense, his detractors will focus on suspect circumstancial occurences and seek irrefutable evidence.

posted 11-27-2001 10:21 PM               

It would be nice to know where the autographs originated from, tho. Remember that I had one of the autos in question.

posted 11-27-2001 11:42 PM              

No, you did not give me the wrong impression. As you said..." there still remains the fact that a master forger (if indeed the Haecker collection were forgeries) may still be out there, churning out bad pieces into the marketplace". I completely agree. This concerns me as well as it should any other collector. As to my statement of "placing this issue behind us" I was referring to the actual Haecker transaction. You did your job and that was to verify the transaction as told to us by David.

Al, you made the following statement:

"While I appreciate your efforts in this and think you did a wonderful job, there is still a lot unanswered. As you pointed out there is still the matter of forgeries here whether they came from Haecker or elsewhere. And as you ALSO pointed out, this is but a small portion of the unanswered questions and it isn't over."

On this, we are in total agreement. Maybe the attention should now move away from David and toward something positive for the hobby. As already mentioned an Armstrong study could be done right here on CollectSpace. Working together, this diverse group could produce an invaluable study on the subject.

posted 11-28-2001 12:58 AM               

As one who doubted DF's integrity going in, but with the additional light, however faint, Robert has been able to shed on the matter, I'd like to state that I fully acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that all that DF has claimed as fact 'til now COULD indeed be the unvarnished truth, and he MAY actually be guilty of nothing more than some faulty judgement, and be merely the victim of a confluence of unfortunate circumstances. (I only ask his defenders to acknowledge that the flip-side of that coin is also STILL JUST AS POSSIBLE).

Consequently, the application of a presumption of DF's innocence doesn't now, circumstantially, seem to me something so inappropriate that I couldn't abide by it as a reasonable standard from this point forward.

posted 11-28-2001 01:18 AM               

I don't think that there are many people out there on either side of this discussion that doubt a large percentage of the Armstrong material from the Haecker collection are indeed forgeries. How else do you explain them. Virtually everyone I've ever seen violates the flag test in a major way. We now supposedly have a little more faith in that. Mr Frohman apparently agrees. They are obviouly from the same hand (a rudementary analysis shows this I believe well enough to convince even a novice) and as we have stated, it doesn't appear to be that of Mr. Armstrong.

I see that everyone here is a winner. Those who have doubted Peachstate have received an admission that they sold more questionable material than any other example known in the history of space collecting. Those who have supported Peachstate have stacked up many important public relations points in outlining the superb customer service provided by Mr. Frohman. It takes a caring person to admit to making so many mistakes and continuing to participate in this discussion.

I still would like to here something about the "To DAVID" piece that I addressed the other day. It is not from the Haecker purchase but is so obviously from the same hand. This is a key question. Where is that one and where did it originate?

One last request. Would anyone who still has one of the pieces from the Haecker collection please take the time to send me as high a quality scan. I would like to document as many of these as possible before they are all destroyed. This information may prove invaluable in the future. I would perfer to have the scans in jpeg format and at least 300 dpi. If file size is a problem, you can just scan the 3x3 area around the signature. I will cut these to a CD for anyone interested if I can get sufficient response. Please include any questionable Armstrong or Collins. My email for the scans is jonerm@forty-two.byu.edu

posted 11-28-2001 09:49 AM               

I think it only fair to add to my request that any distribution of this catalog from the Haecker collection on CD would not identify the purchaser. I believe that is going over the line. I would give them each at best a chronological catalog number by date of purchase. More than likely though, I would just list them by number in the order they were sent to me. I want to do what is right ethically. However, I feel it is important to fully document this fiasco for future reference.

posted 11-28-2001 12:25 PM               

I think that you have raised some valid points.

Also, for many years, I have looked for a generic "To David" Armstrong portrait to replace my vintage 1975 University of Cincinniti portrait which faded.

I encountered the item shown in the Study in passing over the years, among hundreds of other Armstrongs, but was unsuccessful in purchasing it.

I was able, however, to copy it for my reference library, from which it was later drawn for use in the Study.

If anyone SHOULD encounter this piece, PLEASE let me know ASAP so that Mike's idea can be followed-up on.

I also like his idea of developing a database. Incidently, rather than just store a representative sampling on disk, I will actually keep a few sample pieces to donate as reference material.

Many thanks!

posted 11-28-2001 01:26 PM              

I appreciate your balanced comments, but would beg to differ simply on the point of Peachstate having sold more questionable material than any other entity. While not minimizing the number of pieces involved, I would share my personal observation that I see approximately 50 to 100 blatantly non-authentic Armstrongs on e-bay EACH and EVERY month (500 - 1000 each year)!

further, please consider that e-bay is only ONE source and does not even factor in the multitude of other auction houses and internet sites. UNLIKE the dishonest people on e-bay who are CURRENTLY active, at least David has been out in the field for nearly ONE year now, rapidly and efficiently remedying what he sees as a potential oversight on his part.

posted 11-28-2001 04:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacerelic:
I appreciate your balanced comments, but would beg to differ simply on the point of Peachstate having sold more questionable material than any other entity. While not minimizing the number of pieces involved, I would share my personal observation that I see approximately 50 to 100 blatantly non-authentic Armstrongs on e-bay EACH and EVERY month (500 - 1000 each year)!

---

I'm just making a distinction between the auction where everyone knows that the rules are different and the dealers like NovaSpace Galleries, AVD/SpaceSource, Peachstate Historical, Destiny Space, Lunar Legacies... I want to make it clear that I'm not anti-dealer. I don't have any illusions that I can get what I want through the mail for free. I need to work with dealers. Some like Kim Poor, I am close friends with and have known for more than a decade. Others I have never met or done business through. Some I mentioned I would not recommend as they have big problems delivering. My comment was meant to state that in the history of space autographs, this appears to be the single largest group of almost certain forgeries that has ever been issued into the hobby. There are others that can speak to that and are far better qualified than myself. However, I think this is the case. If there are others, I think the group would like to hear the story and I would as well. I don't mind learning new things. That is for another thread.

My point is (and it doesn't matter if you like a particular dealer or not) that with NovaSpace Galleries, Lunar Legacies, AVD/Spacescouce, Destiny Space, I have never heard of a suspected fake. I'm sure there have been some cases but they are obviously pretty uncommon. By comparison, the episode we have discussed with Peachstate Historical is gigantic in scope. I'm not aware of anything that even comes close that involves what we all would consider a reputable dealer. To be fair to Mr. Frohman, it should be remembered that he deals in high end items and so any problems that show up are going to look really big.

We all know some Ebay names that sell virtually nothing but fakes from all kinds of genres. How they stay ahead of the law is beyond me. However, that is a discussion for another day.

posted 11-28-2001 05:56 PM               

You asked, about disreputable autograph dealers who apparently deal in volume on Ebay, how they stay ahead of the law.

In a country where the rights of non-citizen suspected terrorists are fretted over more than the rights of our own servicemen and women, (our military people are subject to military courts; apparently this is seen as not good enough for possible murdering terrorists being detained in this country and captured overseas) is this really a serious question?

But as you said, that is a discussion for another thread, probably on another board. Just venting.

posted 11-28-2001 06:04 PM               

1. catch the individual in the act; or
   
2. have the person who's signature is being forgered testify to the fact that the autograph is not from his/her hand

posted 11-28-2001 10:50 PM               

Mr. Frohman, I am not going to let you off the hook so easily.

In reading your reply, you would make it seem that you never claimed that you were an expert on Armstrong autographs and that you made one simple, honest mistake. I strongly disagree with this.

First, by the very fact that you have positioned yourself as a dealer you have implicitly stated that you are an expert on authentication. (Aren't dealers supposed to have expertise in authentication? Isn't that what it's all about?) Add to this the article you wrote in Autograph Collector Magazine and the Armstrong study, and it's clear that you have always wanted to be known as an expert on Armstrong autographs.

Second, you didn't just make one mistake by buying a bad batch of Armstrongs. You actually made dozens of mistakes (possibly a hundred or more), didn't you? Each forgery you sold was a mistake.

You said that only three people asked for refunds between 1997 and the present. Didn't this give you some sort of clue as to the fact that you sold a bad lot? These weren't returned yesterday -- they were returned years ago! You had years to recognize your mistake but failed at that.

The fact is, Mr. Frohman, that you simply cannot authenticate Armstrong autographs.

You claim that your "corporation" is the largest appraiser, consultant, etc and all that rubbish. I find it disgraceful that you have tried to turn autograph collecting into major industry, while not even doing the necessary background study. You only sell autographs from a few personalities and can't even authenticate those! Your preposterous claims that you are a leading authority on autographs is insulting to those who have been dealing successfully and accurately in autographs for decades more than you. If you are not an expert in your field, get out of the business.

Having said this, I do give you credit for refunding the money owed to people who were affected by your mistake, and applaud you for being forthright, even if it was delayed for several years and presented with your own spin to the subject.

posted 11-28-2001 11:24 PM               

In my mind the refund is not good enough! Back in '98 I bought a nice inscribed Armstrong for $250... you couldn't touch one for that price anymore. I'm not sure what Peachstate sold these for in 97-98, but I bet it is less than what those customers will have to spend now to get a real one (that is if they even want to bother anymore!). The other thing that still bothers me is the single autographed items that were sold to Peachstate and then resurfaced with the entire crews signatures. And then there was another event... this post by Willisdj:

"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."

Sorry, but I believe the issue is deeper and more involved than the Ernest Hacker case!

posted 11-28-2001 11:42 PM               

For those of us with holdings of the much mentioned fakes it is pretty pertinent that the claims be made and paid. Despite announcements to the contrary I, and I guess many others, were not made aware of a "recall" so its only now that some of us will need to be making claims.

Mine will be a good test of the commitment to paying claims that is much mentioned in these threads.

posted 11-28-2001 11:53 PM               

DF's allowing Robert to look over the Haecker documentation was a welcome gesture, but given Robert's relatively little experience (relative to Al's, that is), it is just that, a gesture only. If DF is serious about really laying to rest some very serious doubts that rightfully linger, he'll make those same materials available to Al Hallonquist to review.

(This whole "litmus test" reminds me of the episode where Gary Condit hired his own examiner to administer a lie detector test, and then proclaimed to everyone the results proved he was telling the truth. Robert, please don't take my analogy the wrong way; it isn't meant in any way to impugn your integrity or good intentions).

posted 11-29-2001 10:34 AM            

I am also interested to know what happened to unsigned lithos and photos obtained by PeachState. If they became free giveaway to their customers, can it be confirmed? Does it sum up?

posted 11-29-2001 10:45 AM               

I never had any dealings with Dave. In fact until this thread, I had no idea how to even reach him!

I have heard of this case evolving over the past year or so from the on-line posts. In a sense I consider myself independant of the argument, and I sat back like a juror to take it all in. However, unlike a juror I did not get to see the evidence.

From listening to the posts alone, I would think Dave made a mistake up front. However, he did not appear to fix his mistake in a timely manner when the forgery theory surfaced. That could be attributed to
emabarrasment and a second bad PR mistake.

Given this is not a proper case with jurors, judges and lawyers I have to fall back to the Mint Mantra of look at the whole picture. The whole picture is not complete. The finish will decide the case for me.

There is still a semi-master forger hiding out there. I think it would behoove Dave to do everything possible to root this person out.

There must be a paper trail of forgeries out there somewhere. If all similar forgeries were identified and backtracked perhaps the source could be identified.

Dave could act as part of the community in helping to solve the case or he could continue saying he made a mistake and it is all behind him.

The answer to that question will complete the whole picture in my book.

------------------
Warm Regards

Douglas Henry

posted 11-29-2001 01:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
Enjoy yourself and have fun... it is only a hobby!

---

posted 11-29-2001 02:18 PM               

To some, the book is closed on the discussion of forged Neil Armstrong autographs by David Frohman of Peachstate. David has provided records relating to his acquistion of Armstrong/Collins autographs from the deceased Ernest Haecker. Robert Pearlman has examined David's records & has proclaimed that everything is in order & that David did acquire 180+ autographed pieces from Haecker. David has announced that all Armstrong/Collins autographed material from the infamous "Haecker Hoard" he sold can be returned & refunds will be made.

But in the opinion of many, there are questions remaining to be answered, or have only been partially answered & below I wish to ask two.

But first, those pursuing the truth were accused of carrying out a "witch hunt" by one cS poster, but the "witch hunt" resulted in the exposing of 180+ bogus autographs sold to a large number of collectors.

The following has been established: David Frohman/Peachstate sold probable forged Neil Armstrong autographs & also Mike Collins autographs, but with no knowledge that they were forged. Those of us greatly concerned that Peachstate was selling forged Armstrong/Collins autographs over a 2-3 year period have been proven right. The famous Armstrong Flag Test has proven accurate & the recent statement from Armstrong himself that "I do not write on the flag" certainly helps verify it. Without the Flag Test, I wonder how all this would have turned out?

David states that he has been collecting since 1975 & that he has been "...infatuated with Armstrong..." (stated in one of his articles in Autograph Collector magazine), SO,

QUESTION ONE: I ask this since David has great knowledge & experience in Armstrong/Apollo 11 autograph material - David, certainly you asked Haecker where he obtained so many UNpersonalized Armstrong autographs (120+)? Didn't you think it odd that someone could have so many - weren't you at all suspicious? Did you never become suspicious those 2-3 years that you were selling & trading them that the autographs from the Haecker Hoard (HH) might be less than totally authentic? So many others were greatly suspicious & greatly concerned but nothing stopped their distribution but the Flag Test. David is very intelligent & perceptive & it amazes me that for 2-3 years he never questioned or realized that something was possibly wrong with his hoard of Armstrong/Collins/Apollo 11 autographed material, while it was being questioned by so many others.

Yes, it's known that Armstrong was the victim of various crooks who sent 20-25 or so WSS portraits to him under the pretext that they were for a school class. And these are generally signed without personalizations, like those from the HH. But generally those resulting from the various "school scams" are signed rather quickly - not carefully - just the opposite of those from the HH, that are so carefully applied, almost painstakingly - they certainly don't appear to be done at one time, one after the other, but do apppear to be done slowly & with great care. Surely you wondered a little about these things while the sale was going on for 2-3 years?

And even when Armstrong sat down & signed multiple items for people he trusted, he tended to apply his signature rather quickly - not so carefully each time. This fact is illustrated by the recent acquisition by a well-known collector of a small "hoard" of about ten photos signed by Armstrong in person in 1992. The majority of these signatures are applied rather quickly -nothing like the "hoard" from Haecker, that are typically signed slowly & carefully.

QUESTION TWO: Again about the "To DAVID" personalized Armstrong WSS portrait on page 25 of your Armstrong Study. You explained it as not being yours & was photocopied "in passing" &, significantly, it didn't come from the Haecker Hoard. This explanation continues to puzzle me - It is a great example of the typical Flag Test forgery style that originated, as you stated, from the HH you acquired - but it didn't come from there you say. What a coincidence that it's the only personalized Armstrong WSS Flag Test failer noted & it's personalized "To DAVID", too.

The "To DAVID" personalization ITSELF is a great example of forgery, as noted by many collectors - it's become rather famous. Armstrong typically used a capital letter for the first letter of a person's name in a personalization ( a genuine personalization from his hand would be like this: "To David") - and never all capitals like in this significant forgery example. It's a wonderful example why forgers rarely attempt inscriptions or personalizations!

posted 11-29-2001 02:57 PM               

Robert, could you let us know if we're just posting to ourselves at this point?

posted 11-29-2001 03:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Lorraine:
And Bill (Uzzi), forgery is a crime! The distribution of such material via the US Postal Service (interstate) warrants the FBI's attention!

---

I cannot help to consider Al's "me too please" attitude abusive. If he has something to put on the table, may he do so.

posted 11-29-2001 03:29 PM               

Where DOES all this anger come from? And what in the world are you saying in your last paragraph about me personally? I couldnt for the LIFE of me figure it out. "Me too please"? I mean I know you dislike me but I would suspect your journalistic integrity would have handled this without emotion or without a personal (libelous/slanderous?)attack upon me. I am appalled.

Best,

posted 11-29-2001 04:25 PM               

And what about those forged Peachstate items that have since changed hands from the original owner? How will they be notified?