posted 01-18-2011 02:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
Cant see that going for that low price though!

---

Just wait untill the last 10 seconds!

posted 01-18-2011 03:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
Listing was removed, so someone probably offered enough $$$ to convince the seller to end the auction.

---

posted 01-18-2011 03:38 PM               

Most items listed on eBay are legitimate, and there are many things we do to protect our members from buying items that aren't. One thing we do is remove items reported to us as allegedly infringing through the eBay VeRO program.

In this case, we removed the listing because the copyright or trademark owner of this product reported that they believe the item may not be authentic.

posted 01-18-2011 06:25 PM               

Seems to me some original bidders are probably quite upset, (I wasn't one of them, by the way).

Also, does anyone else find it strange this item all of a sudden went to a $1000 minimum, now has provenance, shows seller knowledge of rarity and includes "30+ years in the space program and you meet a lot of people" in the listing? Wouldn't someone with 30+ years experience in the space program and expressed knowledge kind of know how valuable a Gemini related uninscribed Armstrong is? I dunno. Maybe not.

posted 01-18-2011 06:41 PM               

eBay's Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program is open only to those who hold the rights to the items being sold. If you do not own the rights, eBay advises:

Since the VeRO Program is for rights owners, if you do not own intellectual property rights, you will not be able to participate in the VeRO Program.

I highly doubt that NASA or Neil Armstrong have registered for eBay's VeRO program. I doubt either is policing eBay sales.

So, who?

posted 01-18-2011 06:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Joyner:
What changed their minds? And why isn't the seller required to list it as it was for at least through the original 2+ days length of time?

---

The seller likely had an idea of its worth (if genuine) but I think one can tell that the seller wasn't originally trying to market the item to the best of his abilities because he's probably financially comfortable already. The move to a higher initial starting bid is probably due to some frustration at having his credibility and the authenticity of the item challenged.

posted 01-18-2011 07:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I highly doubt NASA nor Neil Armstrong have registered for eBay's VeRO program. I doubt either is policing eBay sales.

---

Make sure your item is authentic

You should not list replicas, fakes, counterfeits, or other illegal copies on eBay. For example, you should avoid listing an item that bears the brand name or logo of a company that did not manufacture or authorize the product. Do not list homemade or otherwise unauthorized copies of music, movies, television programs, or software. Under the law, it is no excuse to say that you didn't know the item you were selling was a counterfeit. It's your obligation to investigate your source for product and stand behind everything you sell.

posted 01-18-2011 07:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
If that's the case, then eBay's notification is misleading.

---

posted 01-18-2011 08:00 PM               

As I posted before, I personally would not bid on it.

The "eil" is smeared together. I don't like how the "A" is formed-- usually the first down stroke of the "A" and the rest are separate lines. The cross stroke of the "t" is elevated over the rest of the letter when usually it passes through the top of it.

Of course there are variations in Armstrong's genuine signatures and this may have been a "rushed" one.

The provenance is interesting but doesn't prove anything. The withdrawal by eBay and then the relisting does nothing to strengthen my confidence in the item.

posted 01-18-2011 08:10 PM               

Someone complained to ebay that the price was to low and it had an insufficient description. So I had to modify both. Evidently this is a price more inline with what ebay thinks it's worth.

posted 01-18-2011 08:51 PM               

Someone complained to eBay that the price was too low

posted 01-18-2011 09:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DChudwin:
I hope that some of the true experts will give their opinions as well.

---

Having said that and just out of curiosity in the process of following this thread, I'm relatively certain that the item is authentic for the following reasons:

• there's certainly no firm opinion here that the autograph is not genuine based on an analysis of the signature alone and there's so much variation that can exist with a person's signature for various reasons including the writing instrument, the writing surface, the level of support behind the writing surface at the time of signing, whether or not it was rushed, etc. (Lord knows I've put down some wild signatures for credit card receipts over the years) that I believe, under the current circumstances, that you'd have to rely on other more telling indicators for the purpose of deciding whether or not to bid/purchase.

• the seller obviously has been selling some authentic, very collectible NASA-related items recently and yet, like the current item, he didn't do much to market the items very well and surely could have gotten much more money for some of those items had his selling efforts been more commercially motivated.

• there's no reason to doubt, in this particular case, that the seller has actually been in "the industry" for approximately 30 years as he's claimed. Robert has also likely identified him as Tom Hancock who you can google if you aren't aware of who Hancock is. If you look at some of his previous eBay listings and observe the background of one or more of the pictures he's posted for one or more items he was selling, you can also likely conclude that the individual is a professional (no, not a professional con). On this basis, I believe that you can rely heavily on his written statements regarding the provenance of the article in question.

• Also, while he is very short on descriptions for most of his eBay listings, past and present, one can likely discern that this is an individual who was/is genuinely interested in space exploration and the technology and design behind it from one or more things that he did actually write in his listings. (I can reference but won't here.) That certainly, to me, adds more credibility to his representations.

posted 01-19-2011 03:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AJ:
Personally, I don't buy the notion that the seller didn't know what the item is worth, especially if he's claiming 30+ years of meeting people involved in the space program.

---

If the seller isn't an autograph collector, but just someone who either knew (or met) Armstrong in the course of their daily activities, they may not truly appreciate the market value of his signature. After all, to many "normal" people out there, a signature is nothing more than a little bit of ink on a piece of paper. Believe it or not, many people who work in the space program are not collectors and don't have the mindset of a collector. To them, a signature may be a neat little memento at best...not a collectible worth thousands.

posted 01-19-2011 04:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DChudwin:
The "eil" is smeared together.

---

This doesn't concern me too much. It may indicate a slightly rushed signature...but doesn't really give me any reason to reject the signature. One thing I've noticed is that forgers (the good ones, at least) often go to great pains not to introduce those types of oddities into their signatures. (There are exceptions, of course, to any rule.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by DChudwin:
I don't like how the "A" is formed-- usually the first down stroke of the "A" and the rest are separate lines.

---

Armstrong did it both ways. Sometimes he lifted the pen after the first stroke of the "A" and sometimes he didn't. Before the mid 80s, he often lifted the pen between strokes. Later in his signing period (late 80s and early 90s) more and more signatures appeared that showed no pen lift between those strokes. For more rushed signatures, he tended not to lift the pen. Look at the signatures in the Armstrong signature study. There are six non-document signatures (i.e. memento-styled autographs) presented for the years 1990 and 1991...of the same time frame as the eBay signature was claimed to have been signed. Of those six examples, four show no pen lift and two show a pen lift.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DChudwin:
The cross stroke of the "t" is elevated over the rest of the letter when usually it passes through the top of it.

---

I also don't think this rules out authenticity, as Armstrong often placed that cross-stroke above the "t." Again, reference the same six signatures presented in the signature study from 1990-1991. All six examples show the cross strokes above the "t"...some quite high above the "t." In fact, looking at Armstrong's signature back to the 60s, there appears to be little consistency with where he placed this cross stroke. While he appears to have crossed the "t" more often in his earlier signatures, there are examples of him missing the "t" in the study dating back to at least 1967.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DChudwin:
The provenance is interesting but doesn't prove anything.

---

I partially agree with you here. I do like the fact that his claim this was signed in 1991 appears to match several traits of the signature (some of which I have not mentioned above). But overall...in addition to provenance...I believe the signature should also be able to rest on it's own traits in order to be worthy of investment. After all, sometimes a story is just a story. (Also, we've seen numerous stories of former NASA workers obtaining signatures that turned out to be autopens.)

posted 01-19-2011 07:17 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DChudwin:
I hope that some of the true experts will give their opinions as well.

---

posted 01-19-2011 08:47 PM               

I will concede that there are a few examplars from the 1990's that show the "A" formed from one stroke instead of two.